NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 

HASKINS 


1 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/normaninstitutioOOhask_0 


HARVARD  HISTORICAL  STUDIES 


PUBLISHED  UNDER  THE  DIRECTION  OF 
THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  HISTORY 


VOLUME  XXIV 


HARVARD  HISTORICAL  STUDIES 


I.  The  Suppression  of  the  African  Slave-Trade  ! 
to  the  United  States  of  America,  1638-1870. 
By  W.  E.  B.  DuBois,  Ph.D.,  Editor  of 
"  The  Crisis."   8vo.  $1.50  net. 

II.  The  Contest  over  the  Ratification  of  the 
Federal  Constitution  in  Massachusetts. 
By  S.  B.  Harding,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Euro- 
pean History  in  Indiana  University.  8vo. 

$1.2$  net. 

III.  A  Critical  Study  of  Nullification  in  South 
Carolina.  By  D.  F.  Houston,  A.M.,  LL.D., 
Secretary  of  Agriculture.   8vo.    $1.25  net. 

IV.  Nominations  for  Elective  Office  in  the 
United  States.  By  Frederick  W.  Dallinger, 
A.M.,  LL.B.,  Member  of  Congress  from 
Massachusetts.    8vo.  $1.50  net. 

V.  A  Bibliography  of  British  Municipal  His- 
tory, including  Gilds  and  Parliamentary 
Representation.  By  Charles  Gross,  Ph.D., 
LL.D.,  late  Gumey  Professor  of  History 
and  Political  Science  in  Harvard  Univer- 
sity.   8vo.  $2.30  net 

VI.  The  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  Parties  in  the 
Northwest.  By  Theodore  Clarke  Smith, 
Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History  in  Williams 
College.   8vo.  $1.75  net. 

VII.  The  Provincial  Governor  in  the  English 
Colonies  of  North  America.  By  Evarts 
Boutell  Greene,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History 
in  the  University  of  Illinois.  8vo. 

$1.50  net. 

VIU.  The  County  Palatine  of  Durham.  A 
Study  in  Constitutional  History.  By 
G.  T.  Lapsley,  Ph.D.,  Fellow  of  Trinity  Col- 
lege, Cambridge.    8vo.  $2.00  net. 

IX.  The  Anglican  Episcopate  and  the  Amer- 
ican Colonies.  By  Arthur  Lyon  Cross, 
Ph.D.,  Professor  of  European  History  in  the 
University  of  Michigan.    8vo.     $2. so  net. 

X.  The  Administration  of  the  American  Rev- 
olutionary Army.  By  Louis  Clinton  Hatch, 
Ph.D.   Svo.  $1.30  net. 

XI.  The  Civil  Service  and  the  Patronage. 
By  Carl  Russell  Fish,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of 
American  History  in  the  University  of  Wis- 
consin.  Svo.  $2.00  net. 

XII.  The  Development  of  Freedom  of  the 
Press  in  Massachusetts.  By  C.  A.  Duni- 
way,  Ph.D.,  President  of  Colorado  College. 
Svo.  $1.30  net. 


XIII.  The  Seigniorial  System  in  Canada. 
By  W.  B.  Munro,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  Municipal  Government  in  Harvard  Uni- 
versity.  Svo.  $2.00  net. 

XIV.  The  Frankpledge  System.  By  William 
Alfred  Morris,  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Professor 
of  English  History  in  the  University  of  Cal- 
ifornia.   Svo.  $1.30  net. 

XV.  The  Public  Life  of  Joseph  Dudley.  By 
Everett  Kimball,  Ph.D.,Professor  of  History 
in  Smith  College.   Svo.  $2.00  net. 

XVI.  M^moire  de  Marie  Caroline,  Reine  de 
Naples.  Edited  by  Robert  Matteson 
Johnston,  A.M.,  Assistant  Professor  of 
Modem  History  in  Harvard  University. 
Svo.  $2.00  net. 

XVn.  The  Barrington-Bemard  Correspon- 
dence. Edited  by  Edward  Channing, 
Ph.D.,  McLean  Professor  of  Ancient  and 
Modem  History  in  Harvard  University. 
Svo.  $2.00  net. 

XVin.  The  Government  of  the  Ottoman 
Empire  in  the  Time  of  Suleiman  the  Mag- 
nificent. By  Albert  Howe  Lybyer,  Ph  D., 
Professor  of  History  in  the  University  of 
Illinois.    Svo.  $2.00  net. 

XDC  The  Granger  Movement.  By  S.  J. 
Buck,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  History 
in  the  University  of  Miimesota.  Svo. 

$2.00  net. 

XX.  Burgage  Tenure  in  Mediaeval  England. 
By  Morley  de  Wolf  Hemmeon,  Ph.D.,  some- 
time Austin  Teaching  Fellow  in  Harvard 
University.   Svo.  $2.00  net. 

XXI.  An  Abridgment  of  the  Indian  Affairs 
transacted  in  the  colony  of  New  York  from 
1678  to  1731-  By  Peter  Wraxall.  Edited 
with  an  introduction  by  Charles  Howard 
McUwain,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History  and 
Government  in  Harvard  University.  Svo. 

$2.00  net. 

XXII.  English  Field  Systems.  By  Howard 
Levi  Gray,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History  in 
Bryn  Mawr  College.    Svo.        $2.73  net. 

XXIII.  The  Second  Partition  of  Poland.  By 
Robert  Howard  Lord,  Ph.D.,  Assistant 
Professor  of  History  in  Harvard  Univer- 
sity.  Svo.  $2.23  net. 

XXIV.  Norman  Institutions.  By  Charles 
Homer  Haskins,  Ph.D.,  Litt.D.,  LL.D., 
Gurney  Professor  of  History  and  Political 
Science  in  Harvard  University.  Svo. 

$2.73  net. 


HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

CAMBRIDGE,  MASS.,  U.S.A. 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


CHARLES  HOMEr'haSKINS 


GURNEY  PROFESSOR  OF  HISTORY  AND  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
IN  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY 


CAMBRroCE 
HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON:  HXIMPHREY  MILFORD 
Oxford  University  Press 
I918 


COPYRIGHT,  19 18 
HAKVABD  UNIVEKSITY  PRESS 


TO  THE  SPIRIT  OF  FRANCE 
HUMANE  UNFLINCHING 
CLEAR  AND  FREE 
THESE  STUDIES  IN  FRENCH  HISTORY 
ARE  DEDICATED 


a 


i 


PREFACE 

The  institutions  of  the  duchy  of  Normandy  occupy  a  unique 
place  in  the  history  of  Europe.  They  have  their  local  interest, 
giving  character  and  distinctness  to  an  important  region  of 
France;  they  furnished  models  of  orderly  and  centrahzed  ad- 
ministration to  the  French  kings  after  the  conquest  of  the  duchy 
by  Philip  Augustus;  and  they  exerted  an  influence  of  the  first 
importance  upon  the  constitutional  and  legal  development  of  Eng- 
land and  the  countries  of  English  law.  Normandy  was  thus  the 
channel  through  which  the  stream  of  Frankish  and  feudal  custom 
flowed  to  England;  it  was  the  training  ground  where  the  first 
Anglo-Norman  king  gained  his  experience  as  a  ruler,  and  the 
source  whence  his  followers  drew  their  ideas  of  law  and  govern- 
ment; and  during  nearly  a  century  and  a  half  of  personal  union 
with  England  it  afforded  a  constant  example  of  parallel  develop- 
ment. In  the  larger  view  the  effects  of  Norman  institutions  upon 
English  lands  are  the  most  significant,  and  these  naturally  possess 
the  principal  interest  for  Enghsh  and  American  students  of  his- 
tory. The  following  studies  were  undertaken  in  the  first  instance 
for  the  purpose  of  seeking  hght  on  the  constitutional  develop- 
ment of  England,  and  while  they  necessarily  include  many  mat- 
ters which  bear  on  this  but  indirectly,  their  original  purpose  has 
determined  their  scope  and  character.  They  begin  with  the  earli- 
est trustworthy  information  respecting  the  government  of  Nor- 
mandy; they  end  with  the  loss  of  the  duchy's  originality  and 
independence. 

A  constitutional  history  of  Normandy  in  this  period  is,  in  any 
full  or  adequate  sense,  an  impossibility  for  lack  of  sufficient  in- 
formation. Normandy  can  offer  no  parallel  to  the  abimdance  and 
continuity  of  the  English  public  records;  however  great  their 
original  volume  and  importance,  the  documentary  sources  of 
Norman  history  have  suffered  sadly  from  war  and  revolution  and 
neglect,  until  only  fragments  remain  from  which  to  spell  out  some 

vii 


viii 


PREFACE 


chapters  of  the  story,  It  will  be  necessary  more  than  once  to 
revert  to  this  fundamental  fact;  ^  it  is  emphasized  here  as  condi- 
tioning the  nature  of  this  volimae.  We  cannot  trace  a  full  develop- 
ment, but  must  confine  ourselves  to  such  periods  and  topics  as 
have  left  materials  for  their  treatment,  and  some  of  these  must 
await  the  results  of  more  minute  and  special  study. 

The  continuity  of  Norman  constitutional  development  has, 
nevertheless,  been  kept  steadily  in  view,  and  however  frag- 
mentary and  inadequate  the  result,  it  is  believed  that  light  has 
been  thrown  upon  some  of  the  dark  comers  of  Norman  history. 
There  is  here  given  for  the  first  time  a  comprehensive  description 
of  the  govermnent  of  Normandy  under  William  the  Conqueror, 
with  special  reference  to  conditions  on  the  eve  of  the  Conquest 
of  England,  and  certain  new  conclusions  are  suggested  respecting 
the  military,  fiscal,  and  judicial  organization  of  the  duchy.  The 
weakness  of  the  rule  of  Robert  Curthose  is  made  more  evident 
by  a  systematic  study  of  his  charters.  What  is  said  of  the  govern- 
ment of  Henry  I  rests  for  the  most  part  upon  new  evidence  and 
points  to  new  conclusions.  The  persistence  of  Norman  institu- 
tions imder  Angevin  rule  is  shown,  and  the  parallel  development 
of  England  and  Normandy  under  Henry  II  is  examined.  New 
facts  are  brought  out  respecting  the  establishment  of  the  jury 
under  Geoffrey  Plantagenet  and  Henry  II,  and  other  points  will 
be  apparent  to  the  special  investigator.  No  attempt  has  been 
made  to  restate  matters  already  well  established,  notably  by  the 
masterly  researches  of  Stapleton,  Bnmiier,  and  Delisle,  but  care- 
ful attention  has  been  paid  to  their  writings  as  well  as  to  more 
recent  works,  such  as  those  of  Valin  and  Powicke.  That  the  re- 
sults of  the  parallel  labors  of  students  of  English  history,  notably 
Maitland  and  Round,  have  been  freely  used  wiU  be  seen  from 
the  frequent  recurrence  of  their  names  in  the  notes  and  the  index. 
Certain  chapters,  as  indicated  in  each  case,  have  already  appeared 
in  the  American  Historical  Review  and  the  English  Historical  Re- 
view,^ by  whose  permission  they  are  here  utilized;  but  these  have 

'  See  especially  Appendix  A. 

'  A  summary  of  these  articles  has  been  prepared  by  M.  Jean  Lesquier  for  early 
publication  in  the  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  des  Antiquaires  de  Normafidie.   See  also  my 


PREFACE  ix 

been  carefully  revised  from  the  sources  and  considerably  expanded 
by  the  use  of  new  matter.  Unpublished  documents  and  special 
discussions  will  be  found  in  the  appendices,  which  are  supple- 
mented by  facsimiles  of  certain  charters  of  special  interest.  The 
documentary  pubUcations  of  the  past  ten  years  have  relieved  the 
volume  of  many  texts  which  had  been  gathered  for  its  purposes, 
while  the  appendices  have  been  further  reduced  by  reason  of  the 
difficulties  of  collation  under  present  circumstances. 

So  far  as  this  book  contains  new  results,  it  rests  primarily  upon 
a  systematic  exploration  of  the  documentary  sources  of  Norman 
history,  which  in  its  early  stages  was  made  possible  by  a  grant 
from  the  Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington  and  in  its  later 
months  was  aided  by  the  Woodbury  Lowery  Fellowship  of  Har- 
vard University.  Begun  in  1902,  these  researches  have  been 
prosecuted  under  certain  inevitable  disadvantages  of  distance 
and  interruption,  and  it  has  been  possible  to  conduct  them  only 
because  of  the  generous  and  unfailing  helpfulness  of  French 
archivists  and  librarians  and  the  patience  and  good  will  of  their 
assistants.  Space  forbids  a  full  list  of  those  who  have  given  such 
aid,  but  I  must  express  my  special  indebtedness  to  MM.  Georges 
Besnier,  archivist  of  the  Calvados,  R.-N.  Sauvage,  librarian  of 
Caen,  L.  Dolbet,  late  archivist  of  the  Manche,  and  J.-J.  Vernier, 
archivist  of  the  Seine-Inferieure.  For  access  to  material  in  pri- 
vate hands  my  thanks  are  due  to  the  Marquis  de  Mathan,  at 
Saint-Pierre-de-SemiUy,  to  the  proprietors  of  the  Benedictine 
de  Fecamp,  and,  in  the  days  before  the  Separation  Law,  to  the 
abbe  L.  Deslandes,  of  Bayeux  cathedral,  and  the  episcopal  au- 
thorities of  Seez  and  Coutances.  At  Paris  I  must  acknowledge 
my  constant  obligation  to  the  learning  and  friendship  of  a  dis- 
tinguished Norman  scholar,  M.  Henri  Omont,  of  the  BibUotheque 
Nationale,  and  to  those  who  administer  under  his  direction  its 
great  collections  of  manuscripts.  I  owe  much  to  the  advice  and 
encouragement  of  the  late  Leopold  Delisle,  and  in  continuing  his 
work  M.  Elie  Berger  has  generously  placed  at  my  disposal  the 

paper,  Quelques  problemes  de  I'hisloire  des  institutions  anglo-normandes ,  read  before 
the  CongrSs  du  Millenaire  normand  (Rouen,  19  ii);  and  my  Normans  in  European 
History  (Boston,  1915). 


X 


PREFACE 


proofs  of  the  second  volume  of  the  Recueil  des  actes  de  Henri  II. 
My  thanks  are  also  due  to  MM.  Maurice  Prou  and  Ferdinand 
Lot  of  Paris,  to  Mr.  H.  W.  C.  Da\is,  of  Balliol  College,  Oxford, 
to  my  colleagues  Professors  Ed\\-in  F.  Gay  and  Charles  H.  Mc- 
Ewain,  and  particularly  to  Professor  George  B.  Adams  of  Yale 
University.  The  Harvard  Library  has  been  generous  in  pro\'id- 
ing  books  of  a  sort  not  ordinarily  accessible  in  the  United  States; 
and  Mr.  George  W.  Robinson,  Secretary  of  the  Graduate  School 
of  Arts  and  Sciences  of  Harvard  University,  has  rendered  valu- 
able assistance  in  the  correction  of  the  proof  sheets. 

If  the  book  has  been  over-long  in  the  making,  this  has  not  been 
without  compensations  for  the  author.  He  has  had  time  to  linger 
over  the  great  Xorman  chroniclers  with  his  students  and  to  try 
his  conclusions  in  the  give  and  take  of  seminary  discussion.  He 
has  made  the  personal  acquaintance  of  a  number  of  workers  in 
the  field  of  Xorman  history-,  and  has  enjoyed  several  summers  of 
study  and  research  in  some  of  the  pleasant  places  of  the  earth. 
And  as  the  work  comes  to  a  close,  the  memories  which  it  recalls 
are  not  so  much  of  dusty  fonds  d' archives  or  wear>'  journeys  on 
the  Ouest-Etat,  as  of  quiet  days  of  study  in  pro\Tncial  collections, 
long  evenings  of  reflection  by  the  Ome  or  the  Vire  or  in  the 
garden  of  some  cathedral  cit>',  and  rare  afternoons  at  ChantUly 
with  Leof>old  DeHsle,  now  gone  the  way  of  the  Xorman  historians 
and  chancellors  on  whom  he  la\'ished  so  much  labor  and  learning. 
Requiescant  a  laboribus  suis,  opera  enim  illorum  sequuntur  illos! 
To  these  historians  of  an  elder  day  must  now  be  added  friends  and 
students  whose  end  has  come  recently  and  aU  too  soon,  French 
and  English  scholars  of  promise  and  already  of  fulfillment,  Ameri- 
can scholars  in  the  making,  mart>T:s  to  a  common  cause  which  is 
higher  than  scholarship  and  dearer  than  life  itself.  May  their 
works  Uke-ts-ise  follow  them! 


Cambeidgz,  December,  191 7. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PACE 

Normandy  under  William  the  Conqueror,  1035-1087  .  .  3-61 

Importance  of  early  Norman  institutions   3 

Fragmentary  nature  of  the  evidence  /   4 

Norman  feudalism  in  1066   5 

The  problem  of  the  existence  of  knights'  fees   8 

The  military  obligations  of  the  Norman  monasteries   9 

The  case  of  Saint-Evroul   11 

Obligations  of  the  bishops:  Bayeux  and  Avranches   14 

Other  features  of  feudal  tenure   19 

The  military  supremacy  of  the  dxike   22 

Sicilian  parallels   23 

Feudal  jurisdiction   24 

Grants  of  immunity   25 

Ducal  and  baronial  pleas   27 

Ecclesiastical  jurisdiction   30 

The  council  of  Lillebonne,  1080   31 

The  bishop's  '  customs  '   32 

The  duke's  ecclesiastical  supremacy   35 

The  Truce  of  God   37 

Restrictions  upon  private  war   38 

The  duke's  revenues   39 

Evidence  of  a  system  of  fiscal  administration   40 

Relative  superiority  of  Normandy  in  finance   44 

Local  government :  the  vicomte   45 

The  forests   47 

Municipal  institutions   48 

The  ducal  household   49 

Chapel  and  chancery   51 

The  curia  as  a  court  of  justice   54 

Conditions  under  William's  predecessors   58 

Summary   60 

CHAPTER  II 

Normandy  under  Robert  Curthose  and  William  Rufus, 

1087-1106  62-84 

Robert's  lack  of  governance   62 

Losses  of  the  Abbaye  aux  Dames   63 

Evidence  of  the  Constietudines  et  iusticie  and  the  council  of  Rouen  .  64 

Robert's  charters   66 

zi 


xii  CONTENTS 

Their  character  and  geographical  distribution   70 

Their  irregularities  show  the  weakness  of  the  administrative  system  72 
Robert's  chancellors  and  scribes:  Ralph  of  Arri,  Amulf  of  Cheques, 

and  Hugh  of  Flavigny   74 

Scanty  evidence  of  governmental  organization   76 

WUliam  Rufus  in  Normandy   78 

His  charters   80 

His  surviving  writs  show  a  stronger  government   82 

CHAPTER  ni 

The  Administration  of  Normandy  under  Henry  I, 

1106-1135  85-122 

Interest  and  difficulty  of  Henry's  reign   85 

The  conquest  of  the  duchy  and  the  reestabUshment  of  ducal 

authority   86 

The  central  court  and  the  duke's  justices   88 

Examples  of  their  sessions   89 

The  justiciar  and  the  seneschal   99 

Local  justices   99 

Ducal  administration  illustrated  by  writs  from  Montebourg  .  .  .  100 

Restrictions  on  baronial  and  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction   103 

Fiscal  organization   105 

The  Norman  treasury  and  the  treasurers   io6 

Royal  clerks  and  chaplains   no 

How  far  had  Normandy  a  distinct  administration  ?   112 

The  Conslitutio  domus  regis  and  the  Norman  household   114 

Henry's  entourage  in  his  closing  years   120 

The  esnecca,  or  royal  galley   121 

CHAPTER  IV 

NORMAIJDY  UNDER  STEPHEN  OF  BlOIS  AND  GEOFFREY 

Plantagenet,  1135-1150  123-155 

The  problem  of  Angevin  influence  in  Normandy   123 

King  Stephen  as  ruler  of  Normandy   124 

The  conquest  of  the  duchy  by  Geoffrey   128 

He  rules  for  his  son  Henry   130 

Geoffrey's  Norman  charters   132 

His  chancellors   136 

His  preservation  of  Norman  forms   140 

His  itinerary  and  followers   143 

The  ducal  curia   146 

The  itinerant  justices  and  the  jury   148 

Local  officers   150 

The  Norman  church   1 53 

Geoffrey's  poUcy  a  continuation  of  that  of  Henry  I    155 


CONTENTS  Xlll 

CHAPTER  V 

The  Government  of  Normandy  under  Henry  II, 

1150-1189    156-195 

The  position  of  Normandy  in  the  Plantagenet  empire   1 56 

The  records  of  Henry's  rule  in  Normandy   157 

Henry  as  duke,  1 1 50-1 1 54   161 

First  period  of  his  reign  as  king,  11 54-1 164   163 

The  Norman  justices   164 

The  local  courts   167 

The  recognitions   169 

Ecclesiastical  jurisdiction   1 70 

Second  period  of  Henry's  reign,  1 164-1 189   174 

The  work  of  Richard  of  Ilchester,  1 1 76-1 1 78   174 

Comparison  of  the  Norman  and  English  Exchequers   1 76 

The  Norman  Exchequer  as  a  court   178 

Growth  of  officialism   181 

Henry's  great  court  days  .   183 

William  Fitz  Ralph  as  seneschal   183 

The  jurisdictions  of  vicomte  and  bailli    185 

Criminal  jurisdiction  of  the  duke   187 

Civil  procedure   188 

Absence  of  restrictions  upon  the  duke's  authority   190 

Normandy  and  England   190 

Normandy  under  Richard  and  John   193 

Modern  character  of  the  Norman  state   195 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Early  Norman  Jury  196-238 

Norman  origin  of  the  English  jury   196 

New  evidence  for  its  history   197 

Importance  of  the  reigns  of  Geoffrey  and  Henry  II  in  its  development  198 

The  Livre  noir  of  Bayeux  and  its  assizes   199 

The  recovery  of  the  bishop's  lands   201 

The  sworn  inquests  under  Geoffrey   204 

Do  they  presuppose  a  ducal  ordinance  ?   209 

The  Bayeux  inquests  under  Henry  II    213 

The  recognitions  for  Saint -fitienne  of  Caen   215 

Inquests  concerning  advowsons   218 

The  legislation  of  1 1 59   219 

Other  inquests  under  Geoffrey  and  Henry  II   220 

The  sworn  inquest  in  ecclesiastical  courts   223 

Baronial  inquests   228 

The  procedure  in  Anjou  compared   230 


xiv  CONTENTS 

The  swom  inquest  in  the  Norman  kingdom  of  Sicily   232 

Inquests  in  England  in  the  early  years  of  Henry  II   234 

Probable  priority  of  Normandy  over  England  in  the  matter  of 

recognitions   237 

Conclusion   237 

APPENDICES 

A.  The  Documentary  Sources  or  Early  Norman  History  .  241-249 

B.  The  Early  Ducal  Charters  for  Fecamp   250-264 

C.  The  Materials  for  the  Reign  of  Robert  I   265-276 

D.  The  Consuetudines  et  Iusticie  of  William  the 

Conqueror   277-284 

E.  Unpublished  Charters  of  Robert  Curthose   285-292 

F.  Unpublished  Charters  of  Henry  I    293-308 

G.  The  Norman  Itinerary  of  Henry  I   309-320 

H.  Documents  concerning  the  Norman  Courts,  1139-1191  321-328 

I.  The  Early  Legislation  of  Henry  II   329-333 

J.  Norman  Assizes,  ii 76-1193   334-336 

K.  Documents  from  the  Avranchin   337-343 

INDEX  347-377 

FACSIMILES 

1.  Charter  Hactenus  of  Richard  II  for  Fecamp,  1006. 

2.  Charter  Quoniam  veridica  of  Richard  II  for  Fecamp. 

3.  Charter  Propicia  of  Richard  II  for  Fecamp,  io27(?). 

4.  Charter  of  Robert  I  for  Fecamp  (A). 

5.  Charter  of  Robert  I  for  Fecamp  (B). 

6.  Forged  charter  of  William  the  Conqueror  for  Fecamp. 

7.  (a)  Writ  of  Geoffrey  Plantagenet  for  the  lepers  of  Rouen. 
{b)  Sealed  charter  of  Geoffrey  Plantagenet  for  Bee,  1149. 


LIST  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


A.  H.  R  American  Historical  Review.   New  York,  1895-  . 

B.  E.  C  Bibliolheque  de  I'Ecole  des  Charles.    Paris,  1839-  . 

Davis  H.  W.  C.  Davis,  Regesla  Regum  Anglo-Normannorum,  i. 

Oxford,  1913. 

Delisle  Leopold  Delisle,  Recueil  des  actes  de  Henri  II,  roi  d'A  ngleterre 

et  due  de  Normandie,  concernant  les  provinces  franqaises  el  les 
af  aires  de  France,  introduction.  Paris,  1909. 

Delisle-Berger  Ditto,  tomes  i,  ii,  oeuvre  posthume  revue  et  publiee  par  £lie 

Berger.    Paris,  1916-  . 

Delisle,  Carttdaire       Leopold  Delisle,  Carltdaire  normand  de  Philippe-Auguste, 

normand  Louis  VIII,  Saint  Louis,  et  Philippe-le-Hardi,  in  Memoires 

des  Antiquaires  de  Normandie,  xvi  (1852). 

Delisle,  S.-Sauveur.  ..  .Leopold  Delisle,  Histoire  du  chateau  et  des  sires  de  Saint- 
Sauveur-le-Vicomte.  Valognes,  1867. 

Deville,  i4na/yje  fitienne  Deville,  Analyse  d'un  ancien  carlulaire  de  Saint- 

Etienne  de  Caen,  fivreux,  1905,  reprinted  from  Revue 
catholique  de  Normandie,  xv. 

E.  H.  R  English  Historical  Review.   London,  1886-  . 

H.  F  Recueil  des  historiens  des  Gaulesetde  la  France.  Paris,  1738-  . 

La  Roque  Gilles-Andre  de  La  Roque,  Histoire  genealogique  de  la  maison 

dc  Harcourt.    Paris,  1662. 

Le  Pr6vost,  Eure  ....  Auguste  Le  Prevost,  Memoires  et  notes  pour  servir  d  I' his- 
toire du  departement  de  I'Eure.    fivreux,  1862-1869. 

Livre  noir  Anliquus  Cartularius  Ecclesiae  Baiocensis  {Livre  noir),  ed. 

V.  Bourrienne.    Paris,  1902-1903. 

Lot,  S.-Wandrille  Ferdinand  Lot,  Attides  critiques  sur  I'abbaye  de  Saint- 

Wandrille.    Paris,  1913. 

M.A.N  Memoires  de  la  Societe  des  Antiquaires  de  Normandie.  Caen, 

1824-  . 

M.  G.  H  Monumenta  Germaniae  Hislorica.    Hanover,  etc.,  1826-  . 

Neustria  Pia  Arthur  Du  Monstier,  Neustria  Pia  seu  De  omnibus  et  singulis 

Abbatibus  et  Prioratibus  totius  Normaniae.   Rouen,  1663. 


Pollock  and  Maitland  Sir  Frederick  Pollock  and  Frederic  W.  Maitland,  The  His- 


tory of  English  Law  before  the  Time  of  Edward  I.  Second 

edition,  Cambridge,  1898. 

Powicke   F.  M.  Powicke,  The  Loss  of  Normandy.  Manchester,  1913. 

Round  J.  Horace  Round,  Calendar  of  Documents  preserved  in  France 

illustrative  of  the  History  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  i, 

918-1206.    London,  1899. 
Sauvage,  Troarn  R.N.  Sauvage,  L'abbaye  de  Saint-Martin  de  Troarn.  Caen, 

191 1 ;  and  Mimoires  des  Antiquaires  de  Normandie,  xxxiv. 
StapletOD  Thomas  Stapleton,  Magni  Rotuli  Scaccarii  Normanniae  sub 

Regibus  Angliae.    London,  1840-1844. 
Valin  Lucien  Valin,  Le  due  de  Normandie  et  sa  cour  {gi2-i204). 

Paris,  1910. 

Vernier  J.-J.  Vernier,  Charles  de  I'abbaye  de  Jumieges.  Rouen,  1916. 


Manuscripts  cited  without  further  indication  of  place  are  in  the  Bibliotheque 
Nationale. 


XV 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


CHAPTER  I 

NORMANDY  UNDER  WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR  > 

The  Anglo-Norman  state  of  the  twelfth  century  is  one  of  the  most 
interesting  phenomena  in  the  history  of  European  institutions. 
Whether  in  the  extent  and  cohesion  of  its  territory,  in  the  central- 
ized authority  of  its  rulers,  or  in  the  precocity  and  vigor  of  its 
administrative  system,  whose  many-sided  activity  can  still  be 
traced  in  writ  and  roll  and  exchequer  record,  the  Anglo-Norman 
kingdom  finds  no  parallel  in  the  western  Europe  of  its  time.  More- 
over, on  its  institutional  side  at  least,  it  was  no  local  or  temporary 
affair.  Themselves  the  product  of  a  variety  of  elements  —  Anglo- 
Saxon,  Danish,  Frankish,  not  to  mention  the  more  immediate 
Norman  and  Angevin  —  the  contemporary  influence  of  Anglo- 
Norman  institutions  extended  from  Scotland  to  Sicily,  while  their 
later  outgrowths  are  to  be  seen  in  the  imitation  of  Norman  prac- 
tices by  the  kings  of  France,  as  well  as  in  the  whole  fabric  of 
English  government. 

Of  the  two  sets  of  institutions  which  were  suddenly  brought 
into  contact  in  1066  and  continued  side  by  side  imder  the  same 
rulers  for  a  century  and  a  half,  those  of  Normandy  are  much  the 
more  obscure.  It  is  not,  of  course,  implied  that  investigation  of 
the  Anglo-Saxon  period  has  reached  its  hmits:  within  twenty 
years  the  labors  of  Maitland  and  Liebermann,  of  Round  and  Vino- 
gradoff  —  to  mention  no  others  —  have  shown  what  can  be  done, 
and  what  remains  to  be  done,  by  a  more  scientific  study  of  the 
Domesday  survey  and  the  legal  sources  and  by  a  wider  view  of  the 
relations  of  England  to  the  Continent,  and  we  are  likely  to  see 
further  additions  to  our  knowledge  in  these  directions.  Still  the 

»  Revised  and  expanded  from  A.  H.  R.,  xiv.  453-476  (1909),  incorporating  ako 
the  special  study  of  knight  service  in  E.  H.  R.,  xxii.  636-649  (1907).  A  summary 
was  read  before  the  International  Congress  of  the  Historical  Sciences  at  Berlin  in 
August  1908,  and  before  the  American  Historical  Association  at  Richmond  in 
December  1908. 


4 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


mere  mention  of  these  scholars  and  the  sources  which  are  at  their 
disposal  shows  the  great  advantage  of  England  over  Normandy, 
both  before  and  after  the  Conquest.  It  is  only  natural  that  the 
history  of  Normandy  should  generally  have  been  approached,  as 
in  the  classic  researches  of  Leopold  DeUsle,  from  the  point  of  view 
of  France  rather  than  of  England,  and  although  it  is  forty  years 
since  Bruimer  first  showed  the  way  to  a  broader  study  of  Anglo- 
Norman  legal  history,  little  has  been  done  to  apply  his  method  to 
new  materials  and  other  problems.  The  paucity  of  sources  is,  of 
course,  the  great  obstacle.  Normandy  has  no  Domesday  and  no 
dooms.  Its  earliest  law  book,  the  older  part  of  the  Tres  Ancien 
Coutumier,  dates  from  the  very  end  of  the  twelfth  century,  and 
while  there  are  indications  of  the  existence  of  a  distinctly  Norman 
body  of  custom  before  1066,^  the  only  formulation  of  the  law  of 
the  Conqueror's  day  is  a  brief  statement  of  certain  of  the  ducal 
rights  drawn  up  four  years  after  his  death  by  order  of  his  sons.' 
There  is  almost  no  contemporary  evidence  for  the  tenth  century, 
when  even  grants  of  land  were  made  orally  without  any  written 
record,^  and  although  Dudo  of  Saint-Quentin  is  useful  so  far  as  he 
reflects  the  conditions  of  his  own  age,  about  the  year  1000,  for  the 
greater  part  of  the  eleventh  centur}^  we  have  only  narratives  put 
together  two  or  three  generations  later.  Our  main  reUance  must 
be  upon  the  charters,  and  even  here,  such  has  been  the  destruction 
of  Norman  records,  the  body  of  materials  is  less  than  for  contem- 
porary England  or  for  such  adjacent  regions  as  Anjou  and  Flan- 
ders, and  is  notably  small  for  the  earlier  part  of  the  Conqueror's 

2  '  Donavi  apud  Argentias  leuvam  iuxta  morem  patriae  nostrae  ' :  charter  of 
Robert  I  for  Fecamp,  Appendix  B,  no.  10.  '  Consuetudines  quoque  et  servicia 
omnia  que  de  terra  exeunt  secundum  morem  Normannie  ' :  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur-le- 
Vicomte,  pieces,  no.  24.  In  1074  Roger,  earl  of  Hereford,  is  tried  '  secundum  leges 
Normannorum  ' :  Ordericus  Vitalis,  ed.  Le  Prevost,  ii.  264. 

5  The  so-called  Consuetudines  el  iusticie,  Appendix  D.  On  the  sources  of  early 
Norman  law  see  now  E.-J.  Tardif,  Ettide  sur  les  sources  de  I'attcien  droit  normand,  i 
(Rouen,  191 1),  who  emphasizes  the  canons  of  councils  as  a  source  of  secular  law. 

*  L.  Valin,  Le  due  de  Normandie,  p.  145;  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  p.  Lxi.  The  criticism 
of  Dudo  has  at  last  been  made  by  H.  Prentout,  Etude  critique  sur  Dtidon  de 
S.-Quentin  et  son  histoire  des  premiers  dues  normands  (Paris,  1916);  cf.  A.  H.  R., 
xxii.  432  f.  The  two  principal  historians  of  the  later  eleventh  century,  William  of 
Poitiers  and  William  of  Jumieges,  are  of  slight  use  for  the  study  of  institutions. 
On  the  evidence  for  the  reign  of  Robert  I  see  Appendix  C. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


S 


reign/  A  large  part  of  this  documentary  material  is  still  im- 
printed and  unsifted,  and  we  cannot  use  it  in  full  security  until  it 
has  been  collected  and  tested  monastery  by  monastery,  after  the 
admirable  example  set  by  Lot  in  the  case  of  Saint-Wandrille. 

For  the  present  any  treatment  of  early  Norman  history  must  be 
provisional,  and  we  can  never  hope  to  understand  the  interaction 
of  Frankish  and  Scandinavian  elements  in  the  tenth  century  or 
the  government  of  the  first  dukes.®  For  lack  of  sufiicient  earlier 
evidence,  the  study  of  Norman  institutions  must  begin  about  half 
a  century  before  the  Conquest  of  England,  with  the  chronicle  of 
Dudo  and  the  charters  of  the  later  years  of  Richard  II.  Even  for 
this  period  we  shall  find  the  material  too  fragmentary  to  yield 
conclusions  on  many  points,  and  we  shall  need  to  supplement  it 
from  the  more  abimdant,  but  still  meager,  records  of  the  latter 
part  of  William  the  Conqueror's  reign.  Ideally  what  we  should 
most  wish  is  a  picture  of  Normandy  at  the  moment  of  the  invasion 
of  England;  but  as  a  practical  problem  we  shall  find  it  hard 
enough  to  piece  out  some  account  of  the  government  of  Nor- 
mandy if  we  use  all  the  sources  of  the  Conqueror's  reign,  defining 
wherever  possible  the  points  that  can  be  established  as  prior  to 
1066,  and  those  also  which  are  anterior  to  his  accession  as  duke. 

First  of  all,  it  is  plain  that  Norman  society  in  1066  was  a 
feudal  society,  and  one  of  the  most  fully  developed  feudal  soci- 
eties in  Europe.^  Feudalism,  however,  may  mean  many  different 

*  See  in  general  Appendix  A.  H.  W.  C.  Davis,  Regesta  Regiim  Anglo-Normanno- 
rutn,  begins  with  1066  and  includes  only  a  portion  of  the  Norman  charters  of  the 
Conqueror;  cf.  A.  H.  R.,  xix.  594-596.  The  Bibliotheque  Nationale  possesses  (MS. 
Lat.  n.  a.  1243)  a  coOection  of  copies  of  VVUliam  I's  charters  made  by  Achille 
Deville,  which,  though  far  from  complete,  is  of  considerable  convenience. 

*  See,  however,  for  this  period  Tardif,  Eltide  sur  les  sources,  pp.  7  f.,  19-21; 
Prentout,  Elude  sur  Dudon,  pp.  415-424.  Prentout's  Etude  treats  in  detail  the  nar- 
rative history  of  the  early  dukes,  which  is  also  sketched  in  his  Elssai  sur  les  origines 
el  la  fondalion  du  duc/ie  de  Normandie  (Paris,  1911). 

'  See  J.  Flach,  Les  origines  de  I'anciemie  France,  iii.  88,  who  singles  out  Nor- 
mandy, Flanders,  and  the  county  of  Barcelona  as  the  earliest  feudal  states  in 
France,  and  assigns  the  preeminence  to  Normandy  as  '  berceau  a  I'etat  feodal  en 
France.'  The  question  of  the  feudal  relation  of  the  Norman  dukes  to  the  French 
crown  lies  outside  the  limits  of  the  present  volume.  Consult  F.  Lot,  Fideles  ou 
vassatix  ?,  ch.  6;  Flach,  in  Compies-rendus  de  I'Academie  des  Sciences  Morales  el 
Poliliques,  clxxxi.  138-165  (1914);  Prentout,  Etttde  sur  Dudon,  p.  207  ff. 


6 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


things,^  and  we  must  seek  to  determine  what  specifically  feudal 
institutions  then  existed,  keeping  in  mind  always  those  which  are 
significant  with  reference  to  subsequent  English  developments. 
Vassalage  and  dependent  tenure  meet  us  on  every  hand,  and 
while  there  are  holdings  for  life  ^  and  the  word  allod  occurs, 
though  not  always  with  a  very  exact  technical  meaning,^"  the 
greater  part  of  the  land  seems  to  be  held  by  hereditary  tenure  of 
some  lord.  There  are  degrees  of  such  tenure,  and  in  some  instances 
subinfeudation  is  well  advanced, but  it  is  impossible  to  say 
whether  all  land  was  supposed  to  be  held  ultimately  of  the  duke. 
Some  measure  of  the  extent  to  which  feudal  ideas  had  gone  in 
early  Normandy  may  be  got  from  the  indications  of  their  disin- 
tegrating influence  upon  the  Church.  Before  1046  a  provincial 
council  prohibits  bishops  from  granting  the  lands  and  revenues  of 
the  clergy  as  benefices  to  laymen, and  the  need  of  such  legisla- 
tion appears  from  the  case  of  Bishop  Robert  of  Coutances,  who 
gave  cathedral  prebends  as  fiefs  to  his  relatives. The  feudal 
relation  might  be  created  out  of  other  ecclesiastical  rights  besides 
land,  as  when  the  bishop  of  Bayeux  and  the  bishop  of  Seez 
granted  in  fee  the  episcopal  consuetudines  of  several  parishes,^* 

'  Cf.  Pollock  and  Maitland,  History  of  English  Law,  i.  67;  G.  B.  Adams,  Anglo- 
Saxon  Feudalism,  \n  A.H.  R.,  vii.  11-35.  PoUock  and  Maitland's  chapter  on  Nor- 
man law,  though  brief,  contains  the  best  account  of  conditions  before  the  Conquest, 
and  it  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  what  is  there  said  of  feudal  tenure.  M.  Rabasse, 
Dti  regime  des  fiefs  en  Normandie  au  moyen  age  (Paris,  1905),  is  of  no  value  for  the 
early  period  and  is  confused  for  the  later. 

'  E.  g.,  Collection  Moreau,  xxi.  8,  9,  25,  30. 

1°  See  William's  grant  to  Saint- Julien  de  Tours  (1063)  of  the  allod  of  Roncheville 
as  his  vassal  Adam  had  held  it:  Delisle-Berger,  Henri  II,  no.  137;  L.-J.  Denis, 
Les  chartes  de  S.-Julien  de  Tours,  no.  29.  Various  instances  of  alodium  in  this  p)eriod 
will  be  found  in  Lot,  S.-Wandrille. 

"  Infra,  pp.  16,  21. 

"  Council  of  Rouen  (1037-1046),  c.  10:  Mansi,  Concilia,  xix.  753;  Bessin,  Con- 
cilia Rotomagensis  Provinciae,  i.  42. 

"  Before  1048,  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  218.  Cf.  also  in  the  cartulary  of  the 
chapter  of  Rouen  (MS.  Rouen  1193,  ff.  31,  S4v)  the  account  '  quomodo  villa  de 
Duverent  de  dominicatu  archiepiscopatus  exiit ':  Archaeological  Journal,  iii.  6; 
Valin,  pieces,  no.  i. 

"  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  63,  335;  Denis,  Chartes  de  S.-Julien  de  Tours, 
no.  24  (1053).  Cf.  also  Ordericus,  ii.  26,  iii.  473,  v.  183;  Imbart  de  la  Tour,in  Revue 
historique,  Ixviii.  49- 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


7 


or  the  archbishop  of  Rouen  turned  an  archdeaconry  into  an 
hereditary  fief.^^ 

That  the  Norman  barons  before  the  Conquest  held  their  lands 
frorn  the  duke  by  military  service  has  been  clearly  shown  by 
Brunner    and  the  authors  of  the  History  of  English  Law,"  but  it 

Ordericus,  ii.  132;  infra,  note  17. 
"  Die  Entstehung  der  Schwurgerichle,  p.  131,  note  3.  Waitz  had  declared  (Got- 
tingen  Nachrichlen,  i866,  p.  95  f.)  that  we  knew  nothing  of  Norman  feudal  law 
before  1066. 

"  Pollock  and  Maitland,  i.  69-72.  Cf.  H.  Lagouelle,  La  conception  juridique  de 
la  propriele  fonciere  dans  le  Ires-ancien  droit  normand  (Paris,  1902),  p.  ii4fT.  The 
following  instances  may  be  added  to  those  cited  by  these  authors:  A  vassal  of 
Richard  the  Good  makes  the  following  grant  to  Saint-Pere  de  Chartres:  '  tres 
miUtes  concedo  cum  beneficiis  suis  qui  sic  vocantur,  Rollo  et  Angoht  et  Unbeina, 
ut  inde  persolvant  liberum  servitium  '  (Carttdaire,  i.  108;  cf.  pp.  109,  40,  146,  152). 
Robert  I  confirms  to  Saint-Wandrille  land  purchased  '  ab  Hugone  archidiacono  qui 
eam  ex  me  tenebat  in  beneficio,'  and  '  terram  Durandi  militis  quam  prefato  abbati 
cum  servicio  filiorum  ipsius  dedi':  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  pieces,  no.  14.  He  grants 
to  Fecamp,  giving  their  names,  '  quidam  homines  mei  scilicet  milites  cum  omnibus 
sibi  pertinentibus  .  .  .  etiam  alios  milites ':  Appendix  B,  no.  10.  Robert  also  gave 
La  Croix  '  in  beneficium  cuidam  militum  suorum  nomine  Adelelmo  '  (Round,  Cal- 
endar, no.  709),  and  granted  to  Mont-Saint-Michel  half  of  Guernsey  '  quam  quidam 
fidelis  noster  nomine  Nigellus  in  beneficio  tenet '  {ibid.,  no.  705;  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur, 
pieces,  no.  9).  Richard  de  Beaufou  grants  to  Saint- Amand  '  unum  feudum  laici  c. 
acrarum  quod  Anschitillus  presbyter  tenet '  {Monasticon,  vii.  iioi;  La  Roque,  iii. 
suppl.,  2).  For  the  Conqueror's  reign  before  1066  see  his  grant,  ca.  1048,  of 
*  terram  Atzelini  equitis  mei,'  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  26;  his  charter  of  1063  for  Tours 
('  equites  huius  terre  qui  servierunt  Adam  serviant  Sancto  luliano  '),  Denis,  Charles 
de  S.-Jidien,  no.  29  (=  Delisle-Berger,  Henri  II,  no.  137);  Carttdaire  de  S.-Ymer, 
no.  i;  Livre  noir  de  Bayeux,  nos.  i,  5;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  1109;  Pommeraye, 
Histoire  de  S.-Ouen,  pp.  424,  460;  the  grants  to  Fecamp  copied  in  the  Collection 
Moreau,  xxii.  io8v,  xxv.  249;  the  cartulary  of  Prdaux  (Archives  of  the  Eure,  H. 
711),  nos.  301,  320,  429,  439;  and  the  grant  to  Jumieges  by  Gislebertus  of  '  bene- 
fitium  Alsvillam  scilicet  quam  a  predicto  meo  domino  militans  obtineo  '  (original 
in  the  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure;  Vernier,  no.  25). 

The  statements  of  the  chroniclers  are  in  themselves  of  doubtful  value,  but  taken 
in  connection  with  the  passages  in  the  charters  they  offer  supplementary  evidence  of 
some  interest.  Thus  Ordericus  (ii.  397)  says  that  Fulk,  dean  of  fivreux, '  ex  patema 
hereditate  feudum  militis  possedit,'  and  mentions  the  grant  to  Saint-fivroul  by  an- 
other Fulk  of  '  archidiaconatum  quoque  quern  in  feudo  ab  antecessoribus  suis  de 
archiepiscopo  Rotomagensi  tenebat '  (ii.  132).  In  1056  or  1057  a  judgment  was 
rendered  '  in  curia  S.  Ebrulfi  '  depriving  one  of  the  abbey's  knights  of  'omnem 
feudum  quem  ipse  de  S.  Ebrulfo  tenebat '  (ii.  60).  The  dealings  of  Saint-fivroul 
with  Baudri  de  Bocquenc6  (ii.  74  f .)  are  also  interesting  in  relation  to  feudal  justice 
and  service,  fealty,  and  castle  guard.  Feudal  relations  are  also  mentioned  in  the 
Vita  altera  Herluini  (Mabillon,  Acta  SS.  Ordinis  S.  Benedicti,  vi,  2,  p.  356). 


8 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


has  not  been  established  that  their  military  service  had  been 
definitely  fixed  in  amount  or  assessed  against  specific  pieces  of 
land,  and  the  problem  requires  at  this  point  somewhat  detailed 
examination. 

The  question  whether  a  system  of  knights'  fees  existed  in  Nor- 
mandy before  1066  can  best  be  approached  from  the  side  of  the 
ecclesiastical  holdings.  In  England,  Round  has  called  attention 
to  "  the  appearance  from  the  earliest  period  to  which  our  infor- 
mation extends  of  certain  quotas  of  knight  service,  clearly  arbi- 
trary in  amount,  as  due  from  those  bishops  and  abbots  who  held 
by  military  service  ";  and  he  has  shown  that  these  quotas  were 
fixed  shortly  after  the  Conquest  by  the  arbitrary  act  of  the  king. 
In  this  the  Conqueror  may  have  been  instituting  something  new 
or  may  have  simply  followed  previous  Norman  practice,  and  it  is 
from  many  points  of  view  interesting  to  compare  with  the  Enghsh 
inquest  of  1166  the  earliest  statement  of  the  service  due  from  the 
Norman  tenants-in-chief,  the  returns  collected  by  Henry  II  in 
1172.^'  In  these  the  service  of  the  ecclesiastical  tenants  is  given 
as  foUows :  — 

Episcopus  Abrincensis  debet  servicium  v  militum  de  Abrincensi,  et  de 
honore  Sancti  Philiberti  v  milites. 

Episcopus  de  Costanciis,  servicium  v  militum,  et  ad  suum  servicium  xiii 
milites,  [id  est  debet  capere  servicium  xiii  militum  pro  exercitu,  et  similiter 
de  aliis]. 

Episcopus  Baiocensis,  serviciimi  xx  militum,  et  ad  suimi  ser\icium  cxx 
milites. 

Episcopus  Sagiensis,  servicium  sex  militum. 

Episcopus  Lexoviensis,  servicium  xx  militum,  et  ad  suum  servicium  xxx 
milites  et  terciam  partem  imius  militis,  et  preter  hec  habet  x  milites  in 
banleuca  Lexoviensi,  qui  remanent  ad  custodiendam  civitatem  donee  retro- 
bannus  summoneatur,  et  tunc  ibunt  cum  propriis  expensis  episcopi.  Idem 
habet  ii  milites  de  dono  regis  Henri ci  filii  Matildis,  scilicet  in  Mesnilio  Odonis 
et  in  Corbespina. 

Abbas  Fiscannensis,  servicium  x  militum,  et  ad  suum  servicium  xiii  milites 
et  tres  partes  unius  militis. 

Abbas  Bernaii,  ad  suum  servicium  ii  milites. 

Abbas  Gemeticensis,  servicium  iii  militum,  et  preter  hoc  ad  suum  servi- 
cium i  militem  in  EsmaleviUa,  quern  comes  Hugo  le  Bigot  ei  difEorciat. 

1'  Feudal  England,  p.  298. 

1'  H.  F.,  xxiii.  693-699;  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  pp.  624-645.  Those  who 
made  no  returns  are  mentioned  at  the  end;  the  list  includes  the  archbishop  of  Rouen 
and  the  bishop  of  Evreux,  but  no  abbot. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


9 


Abbas  Montis  Rothomagi,  servicium  vi  militum  et  tres  partes  unius 
militis. 

Abbas  de  Monte  Sancti  Michaelis,  servicium  vi  mUitum  in  Abrincensi  et 
Costanciensi  et  i  militem  in  Baiocassino,  quem  faciunt  vavassores  nisi  fuerint 
in  exercitum. 

Abbas  Cadomensis,  servicium  i  militis,  de  feodo  de  Taillebois. 

Abbas  Sancti  Ebrulfi,  servicium  ii  militum,  et  preter  hoc  feodum  Rogeri 
Gulafre,  quod  GuiUelmus  Paganelli  habet  de  rege  in  vadio,  imde  difforciat 
serviciiun  abbatis. 

Abbas  Sancti  Wandregisili,  servicium  iiii°''  militum. 

Abbas  Sancti  Audoeni  de  Rothomago,  servicium  vi  militum,  et  ad  suum 
servicium  quatuordecim  milites. 

Abbas  de  Bernaio  habet  de  feodo  suo  ii  milites. 

Abbas  Sancti  Dyonisii,  servicium  i  militis,  de  feodo  Bemevallis. 

Abbatissa  de  Mosterviller,  servicium  iii  mihtum,  et  ad  suum  servicium 
V  milites  et  terciam  partem  unius  nulitis. 

The  servitia  debita  of  this  list  are  smaller  than  those  of  the  Eng- 
lish bishops  and  abbots,  and,  perhaps  for  this  reason,  the  group  of 
five  knights  is  not  quite  so  much  in  evidence,  but  the  most  striking 
thing  is  the  small  number  of  monastic  foimdations  which  owe  mili- 
tary service  to  the  duke.  If  we  deduct  Saint-Denis,  which  is  not 
Norman,  and  Saint-Etienne  of  Caen,  which  is  evidently  assessed 
not  as  a  barony  but  for  a  fief  which  has  come  into  its  possession, 2" 
there  remain  only  nine  monastic  baronies  in  a  land  where  religious 
houses  were  numerous  and  closely  subjected  to  the  duke's  control.^' 
Upon  what  principle  had  these  nine  been  selected  ?  Not,  as  we 
might  expect,  because  they  were  the  monasteries  which  had  been 
founded  by  the  dukes,  for  La  Trinite-du-Mont  and  Saint-Evroul 
were  established  by  the  duke's  vassals,  and  such  important  ducal 
foundations  as  Cerisy,  Caen,  and  Montebourg  are  not  included. 
The  explanation  must  be  sought  in  some  other  direction,  and  the 
most  natural  one  is  that  of  age.  None  of  the  nine  was  established 
after  1050;  except  Saint-Evroul,  all  are  older  than  the  Con- 
queror's accession.  Jumieges,  Fecamp,  Mont-Saint-Michel,  Saint- 
Ouen,  and  Saint-Wandrille  were  restored  under  the  early  dukes; 
Bemai  goes  back  to  the  reign  of  Richard  II,  La  Trinite  and  Monti- 

'°  Cf.  the  fief  held  by  Saint-£\TOul  in  addition  to  its  normal  assessment.  The 
fief  of  TaiUebois  does  not  appear  in  the  early  charters  enumerating  the  pKJssessions 
of  Salnt-Etienne.  Seven  knights  at  GrainviUe  were  granted  to  Saint-Ouen  between 
1055  and  1066:  Le  Pr6vost,  Eure,  ii.  38. 

Cf.  H.  Bohmer,  Kirche  und  Staat  in  England  und  in  der  Normandie,  p.  31  f. 


lO 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


villiers  to  that  of  Robert,  while  Saint-Denis  had  held  Bemeval 
since  968. It  is  true  that  these  are  not  the  only  monasteries 
which  claimed  to  be  earlier  than  Duke  William,  but  it  is  not  clear 
that  any  of  the  other  abbeys  which  were  independent  in  1172  was 
sufficiently  organized  and  endowed  at  the  time  of  William's  acces- 
sion to  be  assigned  definite  military  obligations.  Saint-Taurin  of 
Evreux,  which  is  undoubtedly  older,  was  subjected  to  Fecamp  by 
Robert  I  in  exchange  for  the  independence  of  Montivilliers;  Cerisy, 
though  begim  in  1032,  owed  its  completion  to  William;  if  Saint- 
Amand  goes  back  to  1030,  which  is  disputed,  its  church  was  not 
dedicated  till  1078;  Preaux  is  barely  earlier  than  Robert's  depar- 
ture for  Jerusalem ;  Herluin  may  have  founded  his  monastic  com- 
mimity  in  1034,  but  he  did  not  estabUsh  it  at  Bee  until  some  years 
later. The  list  of  1172  is  essentially  a  list  of  the  oldest  monas- 
teries of  the  duchy.  If  this  be  the  case,  it  is  altogether  likely  that 
the  erection  of  these  into  baronies  owing  definite  quotas  of  mili- 
tary service  took  place  in  this  same  early  period  —  if  not  while 
they  were  the  only  monastic  establishments,  at  least  while  they 
were  still  the  most  important  ones.  Moreover,  since  the  early 
years  of  William's  reign  were  hardly  a  favorable  time  for  so 
marked  a  manifestation  of  ducal  authority,  this  step  may  well 
have  been  taken  before  the  death  of  Robert  the  Magnificent, 
whether  entirely  in  his  reign  or  partly  in  that  of  his  predecessors 
we  have  no  means  of  knowing.  Then,  for  some  reason  which  like- 
wise escapes  us,^*  Saint-Evroul  was  added  after  its  foimdation  in 
1050,  thus  completing  the  Ust  as  we  have  it  in  1172.^^ 

^  It  claimed  to  have  received  it  from  Rollo:  H.  F.,\x.  731;  cf.  Dudo  of  Saint- 
Quentin,  ed.  Lair,  p.  171. 

"  In  the  absence  of  a  critical  study  of  the  early  monastic  history  of  Normandy 
the  dates  of  these  foundations  are  often  uncertain.  The  chief  authorities  are  the 
documents  in  the  Gallia  Christiana  and  Neustria  Pia;  Ordericus,  ii.  gS.,  with  Le 
Prdvost's  notes;  Robert  of  Torigni,  ed.  Delisle,  ii.  184  fF.;  and  his  continuation  of 
Williamof  JimiiegeSjbk.  vii,c.  22  (ed.  Marx,  p.  252).  C{.'E.Sa.ckm,Die  Cluniacenser, 
ii.  41-54;  and  the  monastic  histories  enumerated  in  Sauvage,  Troarn,  pp.  xlv-xlix. 

**  Probably  because  the  lands  granted  to  the  abbey  already  rendered  knight 
service  to  the  duke.   Cf.  note  30  below. 

^  The  returns  of  11 72  do  not  cover  arriSre  vassals.  The  Norman  monasteries 
which  appear  as  arriere  tenants  in  the  registers  of  the  French  kings  in  the  early 
thirteenth  century  are  likewise  early  foundations.  Thus  Lire  dates  from  1046, 
Troam  from  ca.  1050,  and  Cormeilles  from  ca.  1060.  See  H.  P.,  xxiii,  617,  705, 714  £. 


WILUAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


II 


This  conclusion  with  respect  to  the  early  existence  of  the 

monastic  baronies  in  Normandy  may  be  reached  by  a  different 

route  by  examining  the  account  of  the  creation  of  the  barony  of 

Saint-fivroul  which  has  fortunately  been  preserved  in  the  long 

confirmation  of  that  abbey's  privileges  and  possessions  granted  by 

Henry  I  in  1128: — 

Concede  etiam  eis  et  confirmo  totam  villain  de  Cueleio  cum  ecclesia  et 
omnibus  pertinentiis  eius  de  donis  sepe  dictorum  Roberti  et  Hugoais  de 
Grentemaisnil,  que  est  feodum  unius  lorice,  et  aliud  feodum  lorice  de  dono 
Willelmi  Geroiani  quod  est  inter  Tolchetam  et  villam  que  Villaris  dicitur  et 
appellatur  Bauchencaium,  de  feodo  de  Mosterol,  de  quibus  predictus  Willel- 
mus  pater  mens,  cum  assensu  et  volimtate  Theoderici  abbatis  eiusdem  loci 
primi  post  tempora  Sancti  Ebrulfi  et  predictorum  Roberti  et  Hugonis  de 
Grentemaisnil  et  dicti  Willelmi  Geroiani  avunculi  eorum  predicte  abbatie 
fimdatorum,  baroniam  imam  constituit  ad  servitium  suum  et  heredum 
suonmi  faciendmn  in  exercitibus  et  aliis  negotiis  suis  per  totam  Norman- 
niam,  ita  tamen  quod  Ric.  de  Cueleio  et  Baldricus  filius  Nicholai  milites, 
quibus  memoratus  abbas  Theodericus  iUa  duo  feoda  loricanmi  in  hereditatem 
de  se  tenenda  donavit  cum  assensu  dicti  W.  patris  mei,  servitium  illud  facere 
tenebuntur  quisque  pro  feodo  suo  cum  equis  et  armis  et  cum  expensis  suis, 
et  heredes  eorum,  quando  abbas  S.  Ebrulfi  a  me  submonitus  fuerit  et  ipsi 
ab  abbate,  et  habebunt  rationabiles  tallias  pro  exercitibus  et  aliis  negotiis 
meis  in  Normannia  concessas.  Si  vero  de  servitio  Ulo  defecerint  et  abbas 
submonitionem  suam  ad  versus  eos  probare  poterit,  in  eorum  corpora  et  cat- 
alla  a  me  et  successoribus  meis  capietur  emenda  et  abbas  relevamenta  et 
placita  habebit  et  alia  iura  que  habent  barones  Normannie  in  feodis  loricarum 
suanmi.  .  .  .  Item  de  donis  Ernaudi  Geroiani  totam  terram  que  est  inter 
Tolchetam  et  Carentonam,  que  est  de  feodo  Escalfoii,  quam  dedit  Theoderi- 
cus abbas  Baldrico  filio  Nicholai  tenendam  de  se  per  servitium  unum  va- 
vassoris,  quotiens  habere  voluerit,  cum  nemore  Baldrici.  .  .  . 

As  Theodoric  was  abbot  from  1050  to  1057  and  William  Gere 
departed  for  Italy  before  1056,^^  it  thus  appears  that  Saint-Evroul 
was  erected  into  a  barony  by  the  duke  shortly  after  its  revival  and 
reendowment  in  1050,  and  in  any  case  not  later  than  1056.  The 
abbot's  military  service  was  fixed  at  two  knights  and  assessed 
against  two  of  its  holdings,  Cullei  and  Bocquence,  which  were 
with  the  duke's  consent  granted  as  knights'  fees  to  Richard  de 
Cullei  and  Baudri  son  of  Nicholas  respectively,  Baudri  also  receiv- 
ing a  piece  of  land  between  Touquette  and  the  Charentonne  in 
return  for  a  vavassor's  service.  These  statements  are  in  general 

*•  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  204-210. 

"  Ordericus,  ii.  56-63;  William  of  JumiSges,  ed.  Marx.  p.  178. 


12  NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 

accord  with  what  we  know  from  other  sources.  Two  knights  are 
the  quota  of  Saint-Evroul  in  the  inquest  of  1172  and  the  later 
Norman  returns,^*  and  they  are  charged  against  the  fiefs  of  Cullei 
and  Bocquence  in  the  registers  of  Phihp  Augustus.^'  Now  Cullei 
and  'Bocquence  as  the  duke's  archer  Baudri  had  held  it,'^"  as  well 
as  the  land  between  Touquette  and  the  Charentonne,  appear  as 
possessions  of  the  abbey  in  Duke  William's  charters  of  1050,^^ 
where,  however,  Bocquence  is  said  to  have  been  bought  from  Er- 
naud  Gere.  The  successor  of  Theodoric,  elected  in  1059,  soon  had 
trouble  with  Baudri  de  Bocquence,  but  after  this  had  been  settled 
Ordericus  declares  'tam  ipse  quam  Rodbertus  fihus  eius  usque 
in  hodiemum  diem  pro  terra  de  Balgenzaio  solummodo  monachis 
militavit.'  Toward  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century  the  son 
Robert  appears  as  lord  of  the  honor,^^  and  a  suspicious  charter  of 
the  early  years  of  Henry  II  records  the  settlement,  in  favor  of 
the  monks,  of  a  dispute  between  them  and  their  knight  Roger  de 
Bocquence  concerning  the  services  due  for  a  knight's  fee  at  Boc- 
quence and  '  quadam  vavassoria  terre  que  est  inter  Tolquetam  et 
Carentonam.'  Cullei  appears  as  a  knight's  fee  in  a  charter  of 
Henry  I,  where  it  is  granted  to  Nigel  d'Aubigny.^^ 

There  are,  it  is  true,  some  difficulties  with  regard  to  Henry  I's 
charter  of  1128.  Although  it  was  printed  by  the  editors  of  the 
Gallia  Christiana  'ex  authentico,'  the  original  has  disappeared  in 
the  wreck  of  the  abbey's  archives;  it  was  not  copied  into  any  of 

2'  H.  F.,  rriii.  694,  710;  supra,  p.  9.  ^  H.  F.,  xxiii.  637. 

If  Baudri  the  archer  had  held  Bocquence  as  a  knight's  fee  of  the  duke,  we  can 
easily  see  why  the  duke  should  insist  upon  the  continuance  of  the  military  service 
when  the  fief  passed  into  the  abbot's  control  —  a  possible  explanation  of  the  singling 
out  of  Saint-Evroul  as  the  only  monastery  among  the  later  foundations  which  was 
held  to  render  military  service  to  the  duke.  There  is  a  discrepancy  with  respect  to 
the  various  Baudris.  The  Baudri  de  Bocquenc6  of  whom  Ordericus  speaks  was  the 
son  of  Baudri  the  German,  not  of  Nicholas,  and  Le  Prevost  identifies  the  grantee  of 
the  abbey's  fief  with  Baudri  de  Guitry,  whose  father's  name  was  Nicholas.  Orderi- 
cus, ii.  75-76,  iii.  38, 199,  248,  note;  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  ii.  224  f.;  Lot,  S.-WandriUe, 
nos.  16,  27. 

31  Printed  in  Ordericus,  v.  173-180.    Cf.  ii.  33,  35. 

32  Ibid.,  ii.  75.  ^3  /^^^  ^  184. 

3*  Archives  of  the  Ome,  H.  564;  cartulary  of  Saint-fivroul  (MS.  Lat.  11055), 
no.  21;  Roimd,  Calendar,  nos.  638,  639;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  513. 
"  Ordericus,  v.  200;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  627, 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


13 


the  extant  cartularies,  nor  is  it  mentioned  by  Ordericus.  The 
form  of  dating  is  exceptional,  and  the  other  final  clauses  are  an 
obvious  imitation  of  a  papal  bull.  Moreover,  it  awakens  suspicion 
to  find  that  all  of  the  witnesses  appear  in  earlier  charters  for  Saint- 
Evroul,^®  and  that  one  of  them,  William  Bigot,  went  down  in  the 
White  Ship  in  1120.^^  On  the  whole,  however,  there  does  not  seem 
to  be  sufficient  reason  for  considering  the  charter  a  forgery,  though 
it  is  quite  probable  that  it  has  undergone  something  of  the  re- 
touching of  which  there  are  indications  in  certain  charters  of 
Henry  II  for  Saint-Evroul.^*  If  we  assume  that  the  list  of  wit- 
nesses has  been  correctly  printed,  still  the  name  of  William  de  Sai 
which  precedes  might  easily  have  caused  the  scribe  to  substitute 
William  Bigot  for  his  brother  Hugh,  who  is  well  known  in  the 
charters  of  the  later  years  of  Henry  I  —  a  kind  of  blunder  which 
may  be  seen  in  an  original  charter  of  Henry  I  for  Saint-Etienne, 
issued  two  or  three  years  later.^^  Imitations  of  papal  forms  are 
not  vmparalleled  in  Norman  documents  of  this  period,^''  and  the 
issue  of  the  charter  in  a  provincial  council  is  a  sufficient  explana- 
tion of  the  unusual  style  of  dating.  We  know  from  Ordericus  that 
the  abbot  of  Saint-Evroul  was  present  at  the  council  in  which  the 
charter  was  granted,  and  as  his  monastery  was  one  of  the  largest 
holders  of  the  parish  churches  and  tithes  which  this  council  pro- 
hibited monasteries  from  receiving  at  the  hands  of  laymen,"  it 
would  be  natural  for  the  abbot  to  secure  at  once  from  the  king  a 
detailed  enumeration  and  confirmation  of  the  abbey's  possessions, 
clothed  with  all  the  formalities  which  the  covmcil  could  give. 
Even  if  the  initial  and  final  clauses  be  rejected  as  spurious,  the 
body  of  the  charter,  compared  with  earlier  charters  for  the  same 

Ordericus,  v.  199,  204.  "  Ibid.,  iv.  418. 

See  Round,  Calendar,  p.  224,  note;  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  316  f. 

Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H.  1834,  no.  13-5  bis;  infra,  p.  96.  Here  John, 
bishop  of  S€ez,  appears  as  Robert  between  Robert  de  Sigiilo  and  Robert,  earl  of 
Gloucester. 

*"  For  illustrations  from  1131  see  Henry's  charter  for  Seez,  Appendix  F,  no.  11; 
the  letter  of  Geoffrey,  dean  of  Rouen,  in  Martene  and  Durand,  Thesaurus  Anecdo- 
lorum,  i.  380;  and  a  charter  of  John,  bishop  of  Seez,  in  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr. 
160.  The  presence  of  the  papal  legate  at  the  council  of  11 28  might  have  had  some 
influence  on  the  form  of  Henry's  charter. 

"  Ordericus,  iv.  496  f. 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


house,**  gives  no  occasion  for  suspicion.  Such  comparison  shows 
moreover  that  even  if  the  charter  be  declared  a  fabrication,  it 
contains  elements  of  unquestionable  genuineness,  while  for  the 
passage  printed  above  concerning  the  knights'  fees  there  is  in- 
ternal evidence  that  it  was  reproduced  from  an  older  document. 
The  preservation  of  the  names  of  the  original  tenants  of  Cullei 
and  Bocquence  with  their  obligations  expressed  in  the  future 
tense,  as  if  Duke  William  were  still  speaking,  constitutes  an 
anachronism  which  could  hardly  arise  if  Henry  were  making  his 
own  statement  of  the  abbey's  service,  or  if  a  forger  were  mak- 
ing the  statement  for  him,  but  would  be  natural  enough  if  he,  or 
a  later  compiler,  were  incorporating  into  his  charter  the  Con- 
queror's own  formulation  of  the  terms  on  which  these  knights' 
fees  were  to  be  held. 

If  the  confirmation  of  Henry  I  has  thus  preserved  for  us  the 
original  terms  of  the  grant  of  Cullei  and  Bocquence,  certain  of  its 
phrases  acquire  special  significance.  The  exact  regulation  of  such 
matters  as  summons  and  individual  Uability  {quisque  pro  feodo 
suo),  the  proviso  that  the  service  is  to  be  at  the  vassal's  cost,  and 
the  reference  to  the  rights  of  his  other  barons  in  their  knights' 
fees,  all  imply  that  Duke  William  is  dealing  with  no  new  or  ex- 
ceptional arrangements  but  with  an  institution  which  has  been 
adjusted  and  defined  as  the  result  of  considerable  experience  of 
the  points  which  needed  guarding.  Even  if  it  be  held  that  these 
provisions  represent  only  the  language  of  Henry  I's  day,  there  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  erection  of  Saint-Evroul  into  a 
barony  was  anything  unique  or  in  advance  of  the  duke's  poHcy 
elsewhere.  Indeed,  the  fact  that  the  abbey  had  just  been  restored 
and  reendowed  makes  it  probable  that  WiDiam  was  here  extend- 
ing to  Saint-Evroul  a  system  which  was  already  in  force  in  other 
ecclesiastical  baronies. 

That  the  military  obhgations  of  the  Norman  bishops,  all  of 
whom  are  expected  to  make  return  in  1172,  had  been  fixed  quite 
as  early  as  those  of  the  abbots  is  of  course  altogether  likely,"  but 

^  Ordericus,  v.  173-207;  Monaslicon,  vii.  1079. 

*•  Two  knights  of  the  bishop  of  Lisieux  attest  a  charter  as  early  as  the  reign  of 
Richard  II:  M.  A.  N.,  xiii.  11. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


the  evidence  is  somewhat  different  from  that  in  the  case  of  the 
monasteries.  The  earliest  detailed  accoimt  which  has  been  pre- 
served of  the  tenants  and  obligations  of  a  great  Norman  fief,  the 
Bayeux  inquest  of  relates  to  the  lands  of  a  bishop,  and  the 

conditions  of  tenure  therein  set  forth  are  those  which  prevailed  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  eleventh  century.  The  returns,  it  is  true, 
simply  state  that  the  inquest  was  held  immediately  after  the 
death  of  Richard  Fitz-Samson,  who  died  in  Easter  week,  1133,^^ 
to  determine  what  services  were  owing  to  the  duke  and  the  bishop 
from  the  bishop's  knights  and  vavassors;  but  it  is  clear  that  this 
was  part  of  a  comprehensive  inquest  which  covered  the  whole 
extent  of  the  bishop's  rights  and  possessions,  and  sought  to  deter- 
mine how  they  had  been  held  in  Bishop  Odo's  time  (1050-1097).*^ 
The  matter  is  thus  stated  in  an  early  charter  of  Henry  II : 

Quoniam  ecclesia  Baiocensis  post  mortem  Odonis  episcopi  [tum]  per  subse- 
quentium  episcoporum  impotentiam  cum  per  eorumdem  negligentiam  et  per 
venditiones  et  donationes  et  commutationes  ab  ipsis  factas  fere  ad  nichilum 
redacta  erat,  ne  funditus  ecclesia  predicta  destrueretur  provide  Henricus  rex, 
avus  meus,  instituit  ut  iuramento  antiquorum  hominum  qui  rem  norant 
recognoscerentur  tenedure  iam  dicte  ecclesie  sicut  fuerant  in  tempore  pre- 
dicti  Odonis,  tam  in  dominicis  quam  in  feodis  militum,  vavassorum,  et 
rusticorum.  Ipsius  equidem  tempore  hec  omnia  iurata  sunt  et  recognita  et 
sepedicte  ecclesie  precepto  eius  resignata  et  munimine  carthe  sue,  quocunque 
mode  a  possessione  ecclesie  alienata  assent,  reddita  sunt  et  confirmata.'" 

According  to  these  returns,  the  bishop  owes  the  duke  ten 
knights  for  service  to  the  king  of  France  and  twenty  for  the  duke's 
own  service  in  Normandy,  the  proportion  being  in  the  first  case 
one  knight  for  every  ten  who  owe  service  to  the  bishop,  and  in  the 
second  case  one  knight  for  every  five.  Groups  of  five  or  multiples 
of  five  make  up  the  greater  part  of  the  bishop's  own  military 
force,  which  according  to  the  proportions  just  given  should  be  100 

**  Printed  in  M.  A.  N.,  viii.  425-431;  Beziers,  Memoires  .  .  .  du  diocese  de 
Bayeux,  i.  142;  and  H.  F.,  xxiii.  699-702,  which  furnishes  the  best  text.  Le  Pro- 
vost's copy  '  sur  une  copie  collationnee  faite  en  1637,'  is  in  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1837, 
p.  282.  A  summary  of  these  returns  is  appended  to  the  Norman  returns  of  11 72: 
H.  F.,  xxiii.  699;  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  pp.  645-647. 

*  Ordericus,  v.  31. 

««  Infra,  Chapter  VI. 

*'  Livre  noir,  i.  20,  no.  14.  See  also  the  writ  and  charter  of  Geoffrey,  nos.  16,  39, 
and  the  bull  of  Lucius  II,  no.  157. 


i6 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


knights,  but  in  fact  amounts  to  a  long  hundred  of  120.*'  These 
had  plainly  been  the  obligations  in  the  days  of  Bishop  Odo,  but 
there  is  no  direct  intimation  that  they  had  been  so  fixed  in  the 
period  of  his  episcopate  which  fell  before  the  Conquest.  The  his- 
tory of  one  of  the  bishop's  honors,  however,  indicates  that  its  mili- 
tary obligations  had  been  fixed  even  before  Odo's  day,  and  it  is 
safe  to  assume  that  the  amount  of  the  bishop's  service  to  the  duke 
had  been  determined  at  least  as  early  as  the  amount  due  to  the 
bishop  from  his  vassals.  The  honor  in  question  had  formerly 
belonged  to  Grimald,  one  of  the  conspirators  defeated  at  Val  des 
Dunes  in  1047,  who  died  a  traitor  in  the  duke's  prison  at  Rouen.^* 
In  1074  William  the  Conqueror  granted  to  the  bishop  of  Bayeux 
in  demesne  Grimald 's  forfeited  honor,  which  included  Plessis  and 
certain  other  lands. 

Que  omnia  olim  tenuit  supradictus  Grimoldus  et  de  quibus  eidem  sancte 
ecclesie  quam  supra  diximus  servivit.*" 

What  disposal  was  made  of  these  lands  we  leam  from  the  inquest 
of  the  bishop's  military  tenures  in  1133: 

Episcopus  vero  de  eodem  feodo  fecit  septem  prebendas  et  retinuit  in 
dominium  suum  manerium  de  Plesseyo  cum  foresta  de  Montpinchon.  De 
reliquo  vero  honoris  Grimoudi  habet  episcopus  servitium  octo  militum  cum 
terra  de  Bougeyo  et  de  Dampvou,  que  fuit  de  predicto  feodo  dimidium  mili- 
tis,  quam  terram  GuUIelmus  de  Albigneyo  tenebat  de  Grimoudo  in  maritagio 
cum  sorore  Grimoudi.  De  hiis  autem  militibus  servit  episcopus  regi  sicut  de 
feodis  que  comes  Glocestrie  tenet  de  episcopo.^' 

William  d'Aubigny,  accordingly,  must  have  held  Danvou  and 
Bougy  of  Grimald,  who  held  them  of  the  bishop,  before  the  trea- 
son of  1047,  ^  clear  example  of  early  subinfeudation.  It  is  entirely 
possible  that  the  assessment  of  half  a  knight's  service  by  which  his 
descendants  held  these  lands  was  not  made  until  later,  but  the 
language  of  the  inquest  indicates  that  they  had  been  held  as  half 
a  knight's  fee  in  Grimald's  time,  and  the  fractional  amount  of  the 

*8  It  so  appears  in  the  returns  of  11 72,  quoted  above  (p.  8);  but  the  actual  re- 
turns of  1 133  give  only  iiyf,  and  the  abstract  of  them  in  the  Red  Book  119I. 

"  See  Wace,  ed.  Andresen,  ii,  lines  4219-4242;  and  the  Bayeux  inquest. 

Livre  noir,  no.  3;  M.  A.  N.,  xxx.  700,  from  the  Livre  blanc  of  Saint-Florent; 
incomplete  in  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  65.   Cf.  Livre  noir,  no.  155. 

*i  H.  P.,  JExiii.  700.  Ibid.,  xxLii.  702. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


17 


service  would  seem  to  imply  the  existence  of  a  knight's  fee 
which  had  been  divided  before  or  at  the  time  of  the  grant  to 
WiUiam. 

There  is  also  reason  for  thinking  that  as  early  as  Grimald's  time 
the  honor  owed  the  service  of  ten  knights.  In  the  inquest  of  1133, 
as  just  quoted,  the  bishop  owes  service  to  the  duke  for  the 
enfeoffed  portion  of  this  honor  in  the  same  proportion  as  the  earl 
of  Gloucester  for  his  holdings,  namely,  for  every  ten  knights  that 
the  earl  holds  of  the  bishop  two  knights  for  the  duke's  own  ser- 
vice and  one  knight  for  the  service  to  the  king  of  France.  Such 
an  arrangement  evidently  presupposes  a  group  of  five  knights  or 
some  multiple  of  five,  such  as  we  find  in  the  case  of  the  earl  of 
Gloucester  and  the  other  greater  tenants  of  the  bishop,  and  we 
should  expect  the  honor  of  Plessis,  Hke  the  earl's  honor  of  Evrecy 
and  several  honors  in  the  later  Norman  inquests,*^  to  contain  ten 
knights'  fees.  In  1 133 ,  it  is  true,  it  furnishes  but  eight  knights,  but 
these  are  charged  against  the  portion  remaining  after  the  bishop 
has  created  seven  prebends  and  retained  the  manor  of  Plessis  and 
the  forest  of  Montpingon  in  demesne,  so  that  Grimald's  honor 
must  have  supported  more  than  eight  knights  when  it  came  into 
the  bishop's  hands  in  1074.  The  number  may  not  have  been  ten, 
but  it  was  pretty  certainly  a  multiple  of  five.  Remembering  that 
this  service  was  the  amount  due  to  the  bishop  and  not  that  due  to 
the  duke,  who  received  only  one-fifth  of  it,  we  must  conclude  that 
it  was  assessed  when  the  holder  of  the  honor  '  served  the  church ' 
of  Bayeux,  not  when  the  honor  was  in  the  duke's  hands,  so  that  we 
are  carried  back  to  Grimald's  time  or  before.  If  the  assessment  of 
Plessis  antedates  1047,  so  in  all  probability  does  that  of  such  other 
fiefs  of  the  bishop  as  can  be  traced  back  to  the  beginning  of 
William's  reign,  as,  for  instance,  the  honor  of  Evrecy  and  the 
Suhard  fief.**  And  if  the  bishop's  groups  of  five  and  ten  knights 

"  H.  F.,  xxiii.  694,  695,  700. 

"  See  Bishop  Hugh's  charter  of  1035-1037  in  the  Livre  noir,  no.  21;  Delisle,  S.- 
Sauveur,  no.  13.  Haimon's  fief  of  Evrecy  is  also  mentioned  by  Wace,  ed.  Andresen, 
ii,  line  4044.  See  also  the  witnesses  to  Bishop  Hugh's  charter  of  1042  for  Preaux, 
Mabillon,  Annates,  iv.  444.  That  the  bishop  had  tenants  by  military  service  be- 
fore 1050  is  also  apparent  from  a  charter  of  Bishop  Hugh  preserved  in  the  Archives 
of  the  SeLne-Inferieure  (fonds  Jumieges,  charters  of  Rouvray)  and  printed  by  Le 
Provost,  Eure,  iii.  45;  Vernier,  no.  8. 


i8 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


go  back  to  so  early  a  time,  so,  it  is  altogether  likely,  does  his  own 
service  of  twenty  knights  to  the  duke. 

If  the  preceding  line  of  inference  is  valid,  the  Bayeux  inquest  is 
important,  not  only  in  lending  support  to  the  conclusions  already 
reached  with  regard  to  the  existence  of  ecclesiastical  baronies  and 
knights'  fees  before  1066,  but  also  in  confirming  Round's  view 
that  "  the  Normans  were  familiar  with  servitium  debitum  in  terms 
of  the  ten-knight  unit  when  they  landed  in  England."  "  Round 
seems  indeed  to  consider  this  point  well  established,  but  his  only 
authority  is  Wace's  account  of  the  deliberations  of  1066;  and, 
after  the  destructive  criticism  to  which  Wace,  in  another  con- 
nection, has  been  subjected  by  him,^^  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  point 
out  how  little  value  'a  mere  late  compiler '  has  for  the  events  and 
conditions  of  that  year.  The  Bayeux  returns  are  a  better  sort  of 
evidence,  and  they  not  only  show  clearly  the  prevalence  of  the 
five-  and  ten-knight  imit  in  Bishop  Odo's  time,  but  render  it  prob- 
able that  part,  if  not  the  whole,  of  this  scheme  of  tenures  is  of  stiU 
earher  origin.  If  statements  of  later  chroniclers  were  to  be  ac- 
cepted as  conclusive,  we  should  not  overlook  a  passage  in  a  writer 
earUer  than  Wace,  the  report  in  Ordericus  of  the  deathbed  speech 
of  William  the  Conqueror  in  which  he  mentions  the  assessment  of 
an  arbitrary  service  of  one  hvmdred  knights  upon  Coimt  Guy  of 
Ponthieu,  when  vassalage  was  imposed  upon  him  in  1056." 

Fortimately  the  bishopric  of  Avranches  offers  evidence  which  is 
still  clearer  and  more  direct.  In  the  inquest  of  11 72  the  bishop 
owes  five  knights  for  his  lands  in  the  Avranchin  and  five  for  the 
barony  of  Saint-Philbert-sur-Risle,  in  the  diocese  of  Lisieux.  Now 
the  barony  of  Saint-Philbert  came  to  the  church  of  Avranches  as 
a  gift  of  Bishop  John  in  1066,  being  half  of  his  paternal  inheritance 
from  Raoul  d'lvry,  and  in  the  Conqueror's  charter  of  that  year 

Feudal  England,  p.  259  f. 

Ibid.,  pp.  399-418.  Round  admits  that  in  the  passage  in  question  the  figures 
"  are  far  too  large,  and  savor  of  poetic  license  "  (p.  260,  note). 

'  Widonem  vero  comitem  Baiocis  quandiu  placuit  in  carcere  habui  et  post 
duos  annos  hominium  ab  eo  tali  tenore  recepi  ut  exinde  mihi  semper  fidelis  ex- 
isteret  et  militare  servitium  ubi  iussissem  cum  centum  militibus  mihi  singulis  annis 
exhiberet '  (Ordericus,  iii.  237).  Cf.  a  charter  of  1071-1082  confirming  the  acquisi- 
tion by  Marmoutier  '  de  feudo  imius  militis  nomine  Serlonis  '  (Round,  Calendar, 
no.  1211). 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


19 


confirming  the  gift  it  appears  that  this  was  a  fief  of  five  knights 
and  was  thereafter  to  be  held  as  such  of  the  bishops  of  Avranches/^ 
Evidently  the  whole  had  hitherto  been  an  honor  of  ten  knights. 
Moreover,  by  thus  fixing  the  date  of  the  acquisition  of  this  supple- 
mentary obligation,  we  estabhsh  as  anterior  to  1066  the  assign- 
ment of  the  service  of  five  knights  for  the  original  holdings  of  the 
bishopric  in  the  Avranchin. 

Besides  defining  the  amount  and  distribution  of  the  ordinary 
feudal  service,  the  Bayeux  returns  of  1133  include  castle  guard,** 
the  equipment  and  service  of  vavassors,  and  the  aids  and  reUefs 
due  to  the  bishop,^"  on  all  which  points,  as  Guilhiermoz  has 
shown, they  yield  remarkably  early  and  significant  information. 
Their  importance,  especially  for  the  student  of  contemporary 

The  Conqueror's  charter  is  found  in  full  in  a  vidimus  in  the  Archives  Na- 
tionales,  JJ.  71,  no.  90;  and  is  printed  by  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  iii.  183,  where  the  date, 
which  rests  also  upon  internal  evidence  (comet,  dedication  of  the  Abbaye  aux 
Hommes,  signature  of  Archbishop  MaurUius),  is  incorrectly  printed  as  1076.  E.  A. 
Pigeon,  Le  diocese  d'Avranches,  ii.  660,  gives  only  an  extract. 

^'  On  castle  guard  see  Round,  Calendar,  no.  319;  Ordericus,  ii.  74;  and  the  de- 
cisions of  Robert  of  Belleme's  court  in  the  Charlrier  rouge  of  Troam  (MS.  Lat. 
10086),  f.  180,  182V,  i86v.  On  its  appearance  in  England  after  the  Conquest,  see 
Round,  in  Archaeological  Journal,  Ux.  144. 

On  reliefs  cf.  Round,  no.  320.  Other  early  examples  of  vavassors  wiU  be 
found  in  Round,  nos.  319,  639;  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  iii.  467;  Revue  calholique  de  Nor- 
mandie,  x.  49;  Neuslria  Pia,  p.  587;  Monasticon,  vii.  1074;  Lot,  S.-Wandrille, 
no.  38;  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  hislorique  de  I'Orne,  v.  62,  68.  The  following  notice 
in  the  Livre  blanc  of  Saint-Martin  of  Seez  (f .  47  of  the  original)  illustrates  also  other 
matters  of  tenure :  '  Cum  Willelmus  de  Daraio  anno  ab  incamatione  domini  m 
Ixxx  octavo  ex  divino  iuditio  nimia  corporis  infirmitate  aggravatus  emori  time- 
ret,  .  .  .  donavit  quicquid  de  sua  terra  dominica  Stephanus  metearius  tenebat  et 
colebat,  et  insuper  tantum  de  suo  alio  dominio  sine  calumpna  quieto  quod  plenarie 
sufEceret  ad  unam  carrucam  preter  prata  de  ponte  de  Roca  que  ipse  etiam  donavit, 
necnon  etiam  terra  Fulcoun  quam  predicti  monachi  a  prefato  Willelmo  in  feodo, 
nec  in  feudo  ut  prius  sed  in  elemosina  sicut  cetera  donavit.  Namque  affirmando 
rectum  esse  dicebat  ut  qui  suis  filiis  centum  vavassores  dimittebat  sibi  atque  mona- 
chis  cum  quibus  victurus  atque  moriturus  erat  unum  saltim  ex  illis  proprie  et  solute 
retineret.'  .  .  . 

Essai  sur  I'origine  de  la  noblesse  (Paris,  1902),  pp.  185,  note  34;  187,  note  36; 
267,  note  37;  268,  note  40;  275,  notes  56,  57;  286,  note  90;  292,  note  102;  312, 
note  164.  The  earliest  mention  of  reliefs  which  I  have  found  is  in  a  charter  of  Roger 
de  Clera,  anterior  to  1066,  for  Saint-Ouen  (Collection  Moreau,  xxii.  118,  from  the 
original;  Le  Provost,  Eure,  iii.  467):  'nec  retinui  ex  ipsa  terra  preter  les  reilies  de 
vavassoribus,' 


20 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


English  institutions,  is  naturally  increased  when  it  is  seen  that  the 
conditions  they  describe  are  those  of  the  latter  part  of  the  eleventh 
century.  As  an  illustration  of  this,  let  us  take  one  of  the  points  in 
the  history  of  feudal  institutions  which  most  needs  clearing  up, 
the  matter  of  the  forty  days'  service.  This  was  certainly  the  nor- 
mal amount  in  Normandy  in  the  twelfth  century,  and  seems  to 
have  passed  thence  to  the  other  continental  domains  of  the  Plan- 
tagenets;^^  but  while  its  prevalence  in  England  has  generally  been 
assumed,  it  has  recently  been  asserted  that  even  "its  theoretic 
existence  can  hardly  be  proved  for  England  out  of  any  authorita- 
tive document."  Now  the  earliest  mention  of  the  forty  days' 
limit  so  far  noted  is  found  in  the  Bayeux  inquest,  where  it  appears 
as  the  regular  period  for  the  service  due  to  the  king  of  France  as 
well  as  for  that  owed  to  the  duke  within  the  confines  of  Nor- 
mandy." The  same  period  is  found  in  upper  Normandy  in  a 
Saint-Amand  charter  of  the  Conqueror's  reign,  which  is  also 
interesting  as  bringing  out  the  distinction  between  complete 
equipment  and  'plain  arms'  which  appears  for  the  first  time 
elsewhere    in  the  Bayeux  inquest: 

Ego  Baldricus  annuente  domino  Willelmo  Anglorum  rege  et  Norman- 
norum  duce  clamo  quetum  sanctimonialibus  de  Sancto  Amando  Rothomagi 
servicium  duorum  militum  quod  quadraginta  diebus  debent  per  annum 
de  feudo  Bascheville  donee  ego  vel  meus  heres  reddamus  .xxx.  libras  Rod- 
mesinorum  quas  Sancto  Amando  et  sanctimonialibus  debeo  pro  sorore  mea 
Elisabeth  que  ibi  effecta  est  monacha.  Testes  sunt  Gilbertus,  Alannus, 
Radulfus  fil[ius]  Heluini,  Robertus  de  Bothes,  Ricardus  de  Boievilla,  Wil- 
lelmi  regis,  (sic)  Baldrici.  Ante  hoc  vademonium  predicti  milites  sic  erant  in 
servicio  parati:  unus  horum  totis  armis,  alter  vero  ad  plainas  armas.^ 

From  still  another  part  of  Normandy,  between  1070  and  1081, 
we  have  another  example  of  the  forty  days'  limit,  this  time  as 
applied  to  watch  and  ward.  Here,  if  we  may  trust  the  natural 
interpretation  of  the  possessive  pronoims,  we  also  find  the  prin- 
ciple, later  well  known,  that  the  forty  days'  service  is  at  the  vas- 

^  Guilhiermoz,  p.  275  f.  Pollock  and  Maitland,  i.  254. 

"  H.  F.,  xxiii.  699-700. 
Guilhiermoz,  pp.  185-188. 

From  a  vidimus  of  Philip  the  Fair  of  13 13;  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure, 
fonds  Saint-Amand.  The  word  plainas  is  badly  rubbed,  but  only  the  penultimate 
letter  is  imcertain. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


21 


sal's  expense,  but  any  other  service  is  at  the  cost  of  the  lord."  The 
document,  which  comes  from  the  cartulary  of  Mont-Saint- 
Michel,''^  contains  so  many  points  of  interest  that  it  is  worth 
reprinting  in  full: 

Conventio  inter  ahbatem  ei  Guillelmum  Paginellum. 

Haec  carta  narrat  conventionem  Baiocis  factam  coram  regina  inter  ab- 
batem  de  Monte  Sancti  Michaelis  et  Guillelmum  Paginellum.  Si  WiUelmus 
Paginellus  habet  guerram  de  ilia  terra  quam  rex  Anglorum  dedit  sibi  cum 
femina  sua,  conventio  est  quoniam  Hugo  de  BricaviUa  quadraginta  diebus 
illi  faciet  de  guarda  vel  custodia  sese  septimum  de  cabaUaribus  ad  suum 
cibum.  Et  nepos  iUius  Hugonis  similiter  faciet  si  in  parage  terram  suam 
tenuerit  secundum  hoc  quod  tenebit.  Rursus  si  GuiUelmus  Paginellus  ilium 
Hugonem  submonuerit,  cum  duobus  equitibus  eum  in  sua  familia  ad  suum 
cibum  habuerit  vel  fiHum  suum,  si  liber  erit  de  submonitione  abbatis.  Nec 
si[c]  eum  donnus  abbas  semper  habebit  quin  GuiUelmus  Paginellus  hoc  habeat. 
Et  ita  eqmdem  habebit  in  sua  familia  nepotem  Hugonis  et  Robertum  de 
Cantelupo  et  Guillelmum  Becheth  et  ilium  qui  honorem  Scollant  habebit. 
Et  si  vindictam  vel  placitum  habuerit  ad  faciendum,  homines  quos  tenet  de 
Sancto  Michaele  ita  habebit  quod  in  sero  erunt  ad  suas  domos.  Et  si  homines 
sibi  deficient  de  his  serviciis  que  hie  sunt  divisa,  rectum  sibi  facient  ad 
unam  mansionum  quas  tenet  de  Sancto  Michaele.  Auxilium  accipiet  de 
terra  quam  tenet  de  Sancto  Michaele  pro  sui  corporis  captione  aut  pro  sua 
terra,  si  forisfecerit  eam  erga  regem  vel  abbatem,  vel  pro  fiho  huius  femine  de 
qua  est  hereditas  si  captus  fuerit  in  servitio  regis  vel  abbatis  de  quo  est  fedus, 
aut  pro  ima  sola  filia  maritanda  quam  habet  de  hac  femina.  Conventio  est 
quoniam  Guillelmus  Paginellus  in  terra  quam  tenet  de  abbate  statuet  unum 
hominem  apud  quem  abbas  mittet  pro  submonitionibus  quas  habet  facere 
ipse  abbas  in  terra  quam  Guillelmus  Paginellus  tenet  de  illo.  Qui  si  bene 
submonitiones  fecerit  et  ille  remaneat  quem  monuerit,  abbas  suam  foris- 
facturam  inde  accipiet.  Quod  si  in  illo  submonitore  remanet  submonitio, 
abbati  decem  et  octo  solidos  emendabit  et  abbas  postea  per  suum  legatum 
submonitionem  suam  fecerit.  Conventio  est  quoniam  Willelmus  Paginellus 
unoquoque  anno  duodecim  quercus  ad  suum  cois  accipiet  in  silva  de  Longa 
ViUa  usque  ad  aquam  que  dicitur  Ars,  nec  plus  habet  accipere  nisi  per  ab- 
batem fecerit.  Conventio  est  quoniam  abbas  de  Monte  unoquoque  anno 
dat  iUi  unum  provendarium  de  cera  vel  viginti  solidos,  et  est  in  cois  abbatis 
dare  quale  horum  maluerit,  et  hoc  pro  relevationibus  de  Cantelupo  et  pro 
pastura  de  Lalande,  si  homines  de  Cantelupo  possunt  illam  de  raisneer  in 
curia  Guillelmi  Paginelli.   De  Lavidande,  quam  WiUelmus  PagineUus  inter- 

"  Guilhiermoz,  p.  275. 

^'  MS.  210  of  the  library  of  Avranches,  f.  95;  there  are  also  two  copies  of  the 
fifteenth  century  in  the  remnant  of  a  cartulary  of  Saint-Pair  preserved  in  the 
Archives  of  the  Manche,/onJi  Mont-Saint-Michel,  ff.  iv,  sv.  Printed  by  Stapleton, 
in  Archaeologia,  xxvii.  27  (1838);  Round,  Calendar,  no.  714.  Cf.  P.  Chesnel,  Le 
Cotentin  el  VAvranckin  sous  les  dues  de  Normandie  (Caen,  1912),  pp.  211-219. 


22 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


rogat  in  fedo,  dum  venit  in  Monte  Sancti  Michaelis  est  in  respectu  donee 
coram  rege.  Conventio  est  de  septem  paribus  de  honore  quem  Willelmus 
Paginellus  tenet  de  abbate  de  Monte  Sancti  Michaelis  quoniam  submonuerit 
illos  in  sua  curia,  qui  si  sponte  sua  ambulare  voluerint  ibunt  si  iiberi  erunt  de 
servicio  abbatis.  Si  vero  ire  noluerint,  hoc  debet  Guillelmus  Paginellus  de 
raisneer  in  curia  abbatis  per  homines  qui  sunt  de  honore  quem  accepit  cum 
sua  uxore  qui  illos  viderunt  in  suo  servicio  per  consuetudinem  antecessorum 
suorum.  Huius  cause  testes  existunt  presul  Abrincensis  Michael,  episcopus 
Sagiensis  Robertus,  Rogerius  de  Montegomerii,  Richardus  proconsul,  Ro- 
gerius  de  Bellomonte,  Hubertus  de  Ria,  Unfredus  de  Bohon,  Hubertus  de 
Portu,  Turgisus  de  Tracei,  Alveredus  Malbedenc,  Gaufredus  de  Sai. 

The  document  is  not  always  so  explicit  as  we  could  wish,  but 
certain  poiats  are  fairly  clear.  We  see  the  Conqueror  disposing  of 
the  hand  of  an  heiress  who  holds  an  honor  of  the  abbey  of  Mont- 
Saint-Michel,  and  her  husband  receiving  aids,  reliefs,  and  suit  of 
court  from  the  men  of  the  honor.  The  aids  are  carefully  defined : 
the  lord  may  have  an  aid  for  his  ransom  from  captivity  or  for 
redeeming  his  forfeited  land  from  the  duke  or  abbot,  for  marrying 
one  daughter,  or  for  ransoming  his  son  if  captured  in  the  service  of 
the  duke  or  abbot.  The  last  is  noteworthy,  suggesting  that  the  aid 
for  knighting  the  eldest  son  may  have  developed  comparatively 
late  with  the  growing  importance  of  the  institution  of  knighthood. 
The  mention  of  tenure  in  parage  would  be  important,  if  it  were 
more  specific,  with  reference  to  the  parage  of  Domesday  and  the 
early  history  of  the  tenure  in  Normandy,  where  it  seems  to  be 
otherwise  unknown  before  Henry  II.** 

In  all  these  feudal  arrangements,  the  ultimate  supremacy  of  the 
duke  is  clearly  recognized.  Even  imder  the  weak  rule  of  Robert 
Curthose  a  declaration  of  Uege  fealty  to  the  bishop  of  Bayeux  con- 
tains an  express  reservation  of  the  ducal  rights;  ^°  while  the  whole 
system  of  assessing  knight  service  is  a  conviacing  manifestation  of 
the  duke's  power  and  authority.  Moreover,  the  duke's  right  of 
calling  out  the  general  levy  of  the  country  in  case  of  invasion 

Cf.  PoUock  and  Maitland,  ii.  264;  Maitland,  Domesday  Book  and  Beyond, 
pp.  145-146;  Guilhiermoz,  Origine  de  la  noblesse,  p.  214 £F.;  Round,  in  Victoria 
History  of  Hampshire,  i.  441;  Genestal,  Le  parage  normand  (Caen,  1911);  Powicke, 
The  Loss  of  Normandy,  pp.  98-102. 

">  See  the  elaborate  agreement  between  the  bishop  and  Ranulf,  vicomte  of  the 
Bessin,  drawn  up  doubtless  shortly  after  Bishop  Odo's  return  in  1087,  in  Livre  twir, 
no.  76;  Round,  no.  1435.  The  early  mention  of '  fidelitas  ligia  '  is  noteworthy. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


23 


appears  clearly  in  the  Bayeux  returns,  where  it  is  found  under  the 
name  of  retrobannus,  or  arriere-ban,  by  which  it  is  later  known; 
and  it  is  specifically  reserved  in  one  of  WiUiam's  charters  for 
Saint-Etienne.^'  From  the  care  with  which  his  vassals  reserve 
this  obligation  as  regards  their  dependents  and  even  their  towns- 
men/2  it  would  seem  that  the  duke  held  the  lords  responsible  for 
producing  their  men  when  occasion  aroseJ^  Materials  are  lacking 
for  any  comparison  of  this  system  with  the  Anglo-Saxon  fyrd,  but 
it  is  highly  probable  that  the  familiarity  of  the  Norman  kings 
with  the  arriere-ban  in  the  duchy  made  natural  that  preservation 
of  the  fyrd  which  is  usually  set  down  to  deliberate  desire  to  main- 
tarn  Anglo-Saxon  popular  institutions.  It  should  also  be  noted 
that  the  ordinance  which,  a  century  later,  is  generally  said  to  have 
'  recreated  and  rearmed  this  ancient  force '  of  the  fyrd,''*  the 
Assize  of  Arms  of  Henry  II,  is  drawn  on  the  same  lines  as  an 
earlier  assize  for  Henry's  continental  dominions.''^ 

Certain  distinctive  characteristics  of  feudal  tenure  in  Nor- 
mandy would  doubtless  stand  out  more  clearly  if  we  could  com- 
pare them  in  detail  with  the  feudal  arrangements  established  by 
the  Norman  conquerors  of  southern  Italy  and  Sicily.  Unfortu- 
nately, evidence  on  this  point  is  lacking  for  the  South  in  the 
eleventh  century,  and  while  we  now  know  that  the  substance  of 
the  South-Italian  Catalogus  baronum  belongs  to  the  reign  of 
King  Roger  and  thus  antedates  the  English  cartae  of  1166  as  well 

"  Delisle,  Carlulaire  normand,  no.  826.  Cf.  Guilhiermoz,  pp.  289-292,  where 
the  text  of  the  Bayeux  returns  is  emended.  Wace  (ed.  Andresen,  ii,  lines  $2o$S.) 
mentions  the  calling  out  of  the  peasants  against  the  king  of  France  in  1058. 

'2  Ordericus,  iii.  36,  39. 

Cf.  the  Worcestershire  custom,  Maitland,  Domesday  Book  and  Beyond,  p.  159. 
On  the  fyrd  in  general  see  P.  Vinogradoff ,  English  Society  in  the  Eleventh  Century, 
p.  22  ff. 

Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  eighth  edition,  p.  154;  Constitutional  History,  i.  632. 

Benedict  of  Peterborough,  i.  269;  GuUhiermoz,  I.  c,  pp.  225-227. 

See  the  text  in  Del  Re,  Cronisti  e  scrittori  sincroni  (Naples,  1845),  i.  571- 
616;  and  my  discussion  of  its  date  and  contents,  E.  H.  R.,  xxvi.  655-664  (1911). 
A  similar  conclusion  regarding  the  date  was  reached  independently  by  Giulio  de 
Petra:  Rendiconti  delta  R.  Accademia  di  Archeologia  di  Napoli,  1911,  p.  35;  Stipple- 
mento  all'  opera  '  Le  Monete  delle  Due  Sicilie,'  ed.  Cangiati,  March-June,  1912. 
Cf.  Miss  Evelyn  Jamison,  The  Norman  Administration  of  Apulia  and  Capua 
{Papers  of  the  British  School  at  Rome,  vi,  1913),  pp.  258,  338-341. 


24 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


as  the  Norman  inquest  of  1172,  we  are  in  no  position  to  apply  it 
to  the  conditions  of  an  earlier  time.  The  Catalogus  baronum,  how- 
ever, is  based  upon  the  fundamental  Norman  institutions  of  the 
knight's  fee,  the  groups  of  five  and  ten  knights,  and  the  arriere- 
ban,  while  other  evidence  shows  the  existence  of  the  feudal  aids 
and  the  forty  days'  period  of  service;  and  these  paraUeUsms  are  so 
close  that  they  can  be  satisfactorily  explained  only  by  treating  the 
feudalism  of  the  South  as  an  offshoot  from  the  parent  stem  in 
Normandy  in  the  early  period  of  Norman  expansion. 

Intimately  connected  with  feudal  tenure  is  the  matter  of  feudal 
jurisdiction.  First  of  all,  there  is  the  jurisdiction  which  is  strictly 
feudal,  the  justice  of  the  feudal  lord  over  his  tenants.  Robert  of 
Belleme  has  an  important  court  of  his  barons."  The  monks  of 
Saint-Evroul  have  their  court,  in  which  they  may  declare  the  for- 
feiture of  a  fief  .'^^  The  honor  of  Ralph  Taisson  has  its  barons,  who 
can  be  summoned  to  record  against  encroachment  the  title  of  the 
abbey  of  their  lord's  foimdation."  The  honor  which  WilUam 
Painel  holds  of  the  abbot  of  Mont-Saint-Michel  has  a  court  of 
seven  peers,  who  owe  service  according  to  the  custom  of  their 
ancestors,  and  there  are  also  separate  courts  for  his  manors.*" 
Besides  this  feudal  justice,  there  is  the  jurisdiction  which  is  fran- 
chisal,  arising  from  the  grant  of  public  rights  by  the  sovereign,  the 
justice  which  men  will  one  day  say  has  nothing  in  common  with 
the  fief.  We  cannot  in  the  eleventh  century  draw  the  line  separat- 
ing these  two  sorts  of  jurisdiction  with  the  sharpness  which  later 
feudal  law  permits;*^  the  justice  of  the  feudal  lord  may  owe  some- 

"  Archives  of  the  Ome,  H.  2150;  Bry,  Histoire  du  pays  et  comie  du  Perche  (Paris, 
1620),  pp.  82,  103;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  654;  Vernier,  no.  34. 

Ca.  1056,  Ordericus,  ii.  60,  75.  Cf.  Round,  no.  713  (Mont-Saint-Michel); 
the  stipulation  of  suit  of  court,  supra,  p.  22;  Chevreux  and  Vernier,  Les  archives 
de  Normandieel  de  la  Seine-Ififerieure  (Rouen,  19 11),  no.  7  (  =  Round,  no.  116); 
Le  Prevost,  Eure,  iii.  209;  Vernier,  no.  24. 

"  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  65  (ca.  1070). 

Supra,  p.  22.  The  number  seven  suggests  the  usual  number  of  the  Frankish 
scabini  from  whom  the  peers  of  feudal  courts  seem  to  have  been  derived;  probably 
it  is  these  same  seven  who  owe  the  military  service  due  from  the  honor. 

^  Cf.  Esmein,  Cours  d'histoire  du  droit  franqais,  eleventh  edition,  p.  293  £F.; 
Maitland,  Domesday  Book  and  Beyond,  p.  80. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR  25 

thing  to  royal  grant,  and  the  holder  of  the  franchise  may  not 
always  be  able  to  point  to  the  act  which  created  it,  yet  the 
distinction  seems  thus  early  justified  by  the  facts. 

We  must  at  the  outset  give  up  any  attempt  to  foUow  the  Nor- 
man franchises  back  into  Prankish  days.  Doubtless  Norman 
churches  enjoyed  the  immunity  which  all  such  bodies  were  sup- 
posed to  possess  under  Louis  the  Pious, and  some  had  more 
specific  privileges;*^  but  the  nature  and  development  of  the  im- 
munity is  obscure  enough  in  those  regions  which  have  preserved 
an  vmbroken  series  of  such  grants,*'*  and  in  Normandy  the  coming 
of  the  invaders  not  only  made  a  wide  gap  in  our  records,  but  pro- 
duced important  changes  in  the  holders  of  land  and  probably  in 
the  rights  exercised  over  it.  The  clearest  case  of  continuity  is 
furnished  by  Bemeval-sur-Mer,  which  .had  been  a  dependency  of 
Saint-Denis  imder  the  Prankish  kings  and  was  confirmed  to  the 
abbey  by  the  first  Norman  dukes. This  confirmation  was  re- 
peated by  Richard  I  in  968  in  a  charter  which  grants  full  immu- 
nity and  all  rights  exercised  in  Bemeval  by  count  or  viscount, 
vicarius  or  centenarius.^^  When  we  come  to  the  charters  of  the 
eleventh  century,  the  clause  of  immunity,  though  reminiscent  of 
Prankish  models,  is  shorter  and  more  general.  Richard  II  grants 
to  Fecamp"  and  Jumieges**  the  possession  of  their  lands  "with- 
out any  disturbance  of  any  secular  or  judicial  authority  what- 
ever, as  property  belonging  to  the  demesne  fisc,"  and  the  same 
phrases  appear,  omitting  the  reference  to  the  fisc,  in  his  charters 

^  H.  Bnumer,  Deutsche  Rechtsgeschichte,  ii.  2gi. 

^  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  4;  H.  F.,  viii.  650  (Saint-Ouen). 

For  the  literature  of  the  controversy,  see  Brurmer,  /.  c,  ii.  287  ff.;  A.  Meister, 
Deutsche  Verfassungsgeschichle^  (in  his  Griindriss,  1913),  pp.  77-80;  G.  von  Below, 
Der  deulsche  Staat  des  Millelalters  (Leipzig,  1914),  i.  252-261. 

Bohmer-Miihlbacher,  Regesten  der  Karolinger,  nos.  60  (58),  igo  (186);  Dudo 
of  Saint-Quentin,  ed.  Lair,  p.  171. 

H.  F.,  ix.  731;  cf.  Lot,  Les  derniers  Carolingiens,  p.  57. 

^  '  Haec  omnia  .  .  .  concede  .  .  .  ut  habeant,  teneant,  at  possideant  absque 
ulla  inquietudine  cuiuslibet  secularis  vel  iudiciarig  potestatis  sicuti  res  ad  fiscum 
dominicum  pertinentes.'  Original  in  Musee  de  la  Benedictine  at  Fecamp,  no.  2 
ter;  Neuslria  Pta,  p.  217.  See  Appendix  B,  where  the  documents  relative  to  the 
Fecamp  immunity  are  discussed. 

^  Cartulary  no.  22,  f.  7,  and  vidimus  of  1499  and  1529  in  Archives  of  the  Seine- 
Inferieure;  Vemiex,  no.  12  (i.  40), 


26 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


for  Bemai*'  and  Saint-Ouen.^"  The  clause  is  not  foiind  in  Rich- 
ard's grant  to  Mont-Saint-Michel,  but  appears  in  the  charter  of 
Robert  I,^'  who  likewise  made  the  sites  of  Saint-Amand  and  La 
Trinite-du-Mont  '  immune  from  the  judicial  exaction  of  his 
authority.'  ®^  I  have  found  no  such  clauses  in  any  new  grant  after 
Robert's  time,  though  phrases  are  common  which  grant  such 
protection  as  is  enjoyed  by  the  duke's  demesne. 

How  much,  if  any,  actual  authority  these  vague  grants  of  im- 
munity conveyed,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  Except  in  the  very  early 
instance  of  Bemeval,  they  make  no  direct  grant  of  fees  or  jurisdic- 
tion, and  if  they  are  more  than  a  pious  formula,  it  would  seem 
that  their  primary  purpose  was  to  assure  the  duke's  protection.  It 
is  altogether  likely  that,  in  Normandy  as  elsewhere,  such  phrases 
persist  in  documents  after  they  have  lost  all  real  meaning.^*  In 
any  event  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  as  one  of  the  few  points  upon 
which  there  is  general  agreement,  that  the  Prankish  immunity 
itself,  whatever  its  ultimate  effects  in  establishing  private  juris- 
dictions, did  not  create  exemption  from  the  authority  of  the 
coimt,^^  so  that,  apart  from  the  question  of  any  devolution  of 
royal  rights  to  the  Norman  dukes,  they  would  still  as  coimts 
retain  some  control  of  the  great  reUgious  establishments.  That 
the  clauses  of  immimity  in  the  charters  of  the  Norman  dukes  were 
not  intended  as  a  general  grant  of  the  duke's  judicial  powers  is 

8'  Le  Prdvost,  Eure,  i.  285;  Neuslria  Pia,  p.  399. 

'0  Pommeraye,  Histoire  de  S.-Ouen  (Rouen,  1662),  p.  405;  Valin,  p.  222. 

M.  A.  N.,  xii.  Ill  (Round,  no.  705). 
^  Cartulaire  de  la  Trinite-du-Monl  de  Roiien,  no.  i;  Monasticon,  vii.  iioi; 
Valin,  p.  223. 

'3  Brunner,  Schwurgerichte,  p.  238  ff.  The  charter  of  Richard  I  for  Saint-Taurin 
of  fivreux  is  said  to  have  granted  '  tantam  libertatem  in  curia  Sancti  Taurini 
quantam  suis  hominibus  in  sua  curia  ' :  Bonnin,  Carttdaire  de  Louviers,  i.  2,  where 
we  have  only  a  later  notice,  not  the  act  itself  (Prentout,  Elude  critiqtie  sur  Dtidon  de 
S.-Quentin,  p.  xxiv,  note). 

^  E.  Stengel,  Die  Immunilais-Urkunden  der  deutscken  Konige  (Innsbruck,  1902); 
M.  Kroell,  L'immunile  franqtie  (Paris,  1910),  p.  3035. 

Brunner,  Deutsche  Rechtsgeschichle,  ii.  166, 300,  302;  G.  Seeliger,  Die  Bedeutung 
der  Grundherrschaft  (Leipzig,  1903),  p.  80 ff.;  Kroell,  /.  c,  pp.  217,  249  ff.;  Dopsch, 
Die  Wirthschaflsenl'ivickelung  der  Karolingerzeit  (Weimar,  1912-1913),  ii.  95  ff. 

On  the  use  of  count  as  a  title  of  the  Norman  dukes,  see  Lappenberg, 
Geschichle  Englands,  ii.  18;  Vernier,  i.  75;  and  the  charters  of  Robert  I  cited  in 
Appendix  C,  note  39. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR  2/ 

shown  by  the  practice,"  which  appears  as  early  as  Richard  II,  of 
granting,  sometimes  in  the  very  documents  which  contain  the 
immunity  clause,  the  ducal  consuetudines  in  specified  places.  Thus 
Richard  II 's  charter  to  Bemai  conveys  the  duke's  consuetudines  in 
all  the  villae  possessed  by  the  monastery, and  his  charter  for 
Jumieges  grants  his  customs,  here  styled  consuetudines  comitatus, 
in  three  places. The  term  is,  of  course,  a  general  one,  com- 
prising tolls,  market  rights,  and  a  great  variety  of  rights  of  ex- 
ploitation other  than  the  profits  of  justice,  but  it  specifically 
includes  '  laws  and  forfeitures  '  in  Richard's  grant  of  the  customs 
of  the  Mount  to  Mont-Saint-Michel,'"*  and  its  jurisdictional  con- 
tent is  more  exactly  defined  in  documents  to  which  we  shall  come 
in  a  moment.  We  may  say  provisionally  that  when  the  duke 
wished  to  convey  jurisdiction,  he  made  a  grant  of  the  ducal  con- 
suetudines, but  we  can  understand  what  this  means  only  when  we 
have  examined  what  judicial  rights  the  duke  had  to  grant. 

It  is  commonly  asserted  by  modem  writers  that  the  duke  of 
Normandy  was  the  only  feudatory  of  the  French  crown  who  suc- 

"  This  point  is  overlooked  by  Valin,  p.  223,  in  his  argument  from  the  later  in- 
terpretation of  monastic  immunities. 
*  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  i.  285. 

"  '  Ex  quibus  nostro  tempore  donavit  per  nostrum  consensum  Rotbertus  archi- 
episcopus  frater  noster  onrnes  consuetudines  que  ad  comitatum  pertinent  quas  ipse 
ex  nostro  iure  possidebat.  ...  In  Vado  Fulmerii  unum  alodarium  et  omnes  con- 
suetudines quas  ex  iure  comitatus  in  omnibus  terris  ipsius  loci  tenebam.  .  .  .  Pro 
quo  et  nos  donavimus  omnes  consuetudines  que  ex  ipsa  terra  pertinebant  ad  nos.' 
Cartulary  22  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  £f.  7-1 1 ;  vidimus  of  1499  and  1529 
in  same  archives;  Vernier,  no.  12.  Cf.  Neustria  Pia,  p.  323;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  527; 
Monasticon,  vii.  1087;  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  ii.  296;  and  the  long  and  interesting  list 
of  consuetudines  of  the  count  of  Maine  at  Chateau-du-Loir  in  Archives  hisloriques  du 
Maine,  vi.  34. 

Cf.  Flach,  Origines  de  Vancienne  France,  i.  203;  and  notes  109,  163,  below. 

Neustria  Pia,  p.  27&',  M.A.N.,jdi.iio;  Round,  no.  702.  Cf.  the  Conqueror's 
charter  in  Cartulaire  de  S.-Pere  de  Chartres,  i.  168.  On  the  other  hand  his  charter 
for  Saint-Desir  mentions  '  consuetudinibus  et  forisfactis  '  {Gallia  Christiana,  xi. 
instr.  203).  Undefined  ducal  grants  of  consuetudines  will  be  found  in  Livre  jioir, 
no.  i;  Revue  catholique  de  Normandie,  x.  49;  La  Roque,  iii.  26;  Cartulaire  de  Notre- 
Datne  de  Chartres,  i.  86;  Sauvage,  Troarn,  p.  349  f.;  Collection  Moreau,  xxi.  no 
(Saint-Ouen) . 

'"^  Brussel,  Usage  des  fiefs  (Paris,  1750),  i.  253;  A.  Luchaire,  Manuel  des  institu- 
tions franfaises,  pp.  24s,  256.  Valin,  pp.  60, 182-193, also  criticizes  the  current  view, 
but  in  too  juristic  a  fashion,  overlooking  the  early  evidence  cited  below,  which  was 


28 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


ceeded  in  retaining  for  himself  the  monopoly  of  haute  justice 
throughout  his  dominions.  Now  if  we  mean  by  haute  justice  what 
the  lawj-ers  of  the  thirteenth  century'  meant,  jurisdiction  by  virtue 
of  which  the  duel  could  be  held  and  penalty  of  death  or  mutilation 
inflicted,  this  statement  is  far  from  correct,  for  so-called  pleas  of 
the  sword  are  often  held  by  the  duke's  vassals  ^"^  and  the  duel  is 
waged  in  their  courts. If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  mean  that  a 
baron  could  possess  such  pleas  only  by  virtue  of  a  ducal  grant,  and 
that  certain  of  them  were  never  granted,  the  statement  will  prob- 
ably hold.  For  the  pleas  of  the  sword  in  the  twelfth  century-  we 
have  a  list  drawn  up  under  Henry  II,  which  can  be  supplemented 
by  certain  chapters  of  the  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier^'^  and  confirmed 
by  the  Exchequer  Rolls.  This  hst,  however,  expressly  says  that 
murder  belongs  "  to  the  duke  alone  or  to  those  to  whom  he  or  his 
ancestors  have  granted  it,"  and  it  is  plain  that  the  same  Limitation 
is  intended  to  qualify  others  of  the  pleas  enumerated.  The  matter 
is  clearer  in  the  inquest  of  1091,  which  gives  a  statement,  includ- 
ing fewer  pleas  but  professedly  incomplete,  of  the  '  customs  and 
justice'  exercised  by  WUham  the  Conqueror  in  the  duchy.  Assault 
in  the  duke's  court  or  on  the  way  to  and  from  it,  offenses  com- 
mitted in  the  host  or  within  a  week  of  its  setting  forth  or  its 
return,  offenses  against  pilgrims,  and  \-iolations  of  the  coinage  — 
these  place  the  offender  in  the  duke's  mercy  and  belong  exclu- 
sively to  his  jurisdiction.^"*  On  the  other  hand,  it  appears  from 
the  same  inquest  that  there  are  other  offenses,  such  as  attacks  on 
houses  (hainfara),  arson,  rape,  and  imwarranted  seizure  of  sure- 
ties, jurisdiction  over  which  belongs  in  some  places  to  the  duke 

printed  in  1908  and  1909.  His  theor>'  of  the  late  development  of  ducal  sovereignty 
has  been  answered  by  Powicke,  Loss  of  Normandy,  pp.  80-84. 

^'^  See  B.  E.  C,  xiii.  108-109;  Stapleton,  Magni  Rotuli,  i,  p.  xxxiii;  and  the 
texts  dted  below. 

1**  See,  for  example,  the  duels  held  in  the  court  of  the  abbot  of  Jumieges  in  1056. 
Mabillon,  Annates  Ordinis  S.  Benedicti,  iv.  519;  and  in  the  court  of  Roger  of  Beau- 
mont, Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  202. 

Ed.  Tardif,  cc.  70  (inquest),  15,  16,  35,  53,  58,  59;  cf.  67,  69.  Cf.  Pollock 
and  Maitland,  ii.  455;  and  infra,  p.  187. 

Appendix  D,  cc.  1-3,  12,  13.  The  protection  of  the  plow  by  the  duke,  as  we 
find  it  in  the  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  likewise  goes  far  back  into  Norman,  if  not  into 
Scandina%-ian,  history.  Dudo,  ed.  Lair,  pp.  171-172;  Wilda,  Strafrecht,  p.  245; 
council  of  Rouen,  1096,  c.  2. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


29 


and  in  others  to  his  barons;  and  we  find  arson,  rape,  and  hain- 
fara  among  the  consueludines  which  Duke  William,  in  the  year  of 
his  marriage,  granted  to  the  abbot  of  Preaux."*  Similar  pleas 
were  doubtless  included  in  the  consueludines  de  sanguine  granted 
by  the  Conqueror  to  Bee,  which  possessed  jurisdiction  over  mur- 
der and  mayhem  among  the  '  royal  Uberties  '  it  enjoyed  under 
Henry  I;  and  while  there  were  probably  local  differences,  as  in 
Anglo-Saxon  England,  where  Domesday  shows  curious  parallels 
to  the  Norman  forfeitures,""  it  is  evidently  jurisdiction  over 
crimes  of  this  sort  which  is  conferred  by  the  ducal  grants  of  con- 
sueludines to  monasteries.  The  great  lay  lords  might  also  have 
such  customs;  indeed  the  forfeiture  of  Hfe  and  limb  in  baronial 
courts  is  presupposed  in  the  inquest  of  1091.'"  The  counts  of 
Evreux  and  Mortain  have  blood- justice;  the  count  of  Eu  has 
justice  in  the  hundred  of  Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive  over  all  forfeitures 
except  the  duke's  army  and  coinage;  Robert,  count  of  Meulan, 
Cc.  9,  10. 

^'^  Appendix  D,  p.  279;  Valin,  pieces,  no.  2.  Kings  Robert  I  and  Philip  I  enu- 
merate '  sanguinem,  raptum,  Lncendium,  homicidium  '  among  the  constiettidines  of 
Micy;  Pfister,  Robert  le  Pieu.x,  no.  68;  Prou,  Acles  de  Philippe  I,  no.  77. 

109  '  Predicto  monasterio  tradidit  idem  comes  Normannie  omnes  consueludines 
de  sanguine  et  theloneo  quas  habebat  circa  ipsum  monasterium  ':  before  1066,  MS. 
Lat.  12884,  f-  177;  cf.  E.  Poree,  Histoire  dii  Bee,  i.  327,  367,  646.  The  relevant 
portion  of  the  charter  of  Henry  I  for  Bee  (Round,  Calendar,  no.  375)  is  printed 
below  Ln  Chapter  III,  note  21 ;  see  also  the  charter  on  the  next  page  estabhshing  the 
jurisdiction  of  Fecamp  over  homicide  and  arson  by  grant  of  Henry's  predecessors. 
Cf.  also  Robert  I's  grant  of  Harfleur  '  cum  sanguine  '  to  MontiviUiers  {Gallia 
Christiana,  xi.  instr.  326);  the  Conqueror's  grant  of  '  leugam  cum  sanguine  '  to  the 
monks  of  Saint-Benoit  (Prou  and  \'idier,  Recueil  des  chartes  de  S.-Benoit-sitr-Loire, 
no.  78);  and  Henry  I's  charter  for  Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive,  where,  however,  pleas 
relating  to  the  army  and  the  coinage  are  expressly  reserved  {Gallia  Christiana,  xi. 
instr.  157).  John,  abbot  of  Fecamp  (1028-1079),  grants  a  piece  of  land  '  retenta 
publica  iustitia  in  consUio  nostro  ':  Collection  Moreau,  xxi.  25. 

Cf.  Pollock  and  Maitland,  ii.  454;  Maitland,  Domesday  Book  and  Beyond, 
pp.  87-88;  Vinogradoff,  English  Society  in  the  Eleventh  Centnry,  p.  in  £F. 

"1  C.  8. 

^  Count  Richard  of  fivreux  (d.  1067)  gives  '  Deo  et  Sancto  Taurine  tres  con- 
sueludines quas  habebat  in  terra  Sancti  Taurini,  \'idelicel  sanguinem,  sepleragium 
(sesteragium  ?),  et  Ihelonagium.'  '  Little  Cartulary '  of  Saint-Taurin ,  Archives  of 
the  Eure,  H.  793,  no.  26.   For  Mortain  see  B.  E.  C,  xiii.  108,  note. 

Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  156-158;  cf.  col.  203.  See  also  Countess  Adeliza's 
grant  of  '  omnem  vicecomilalum  .  .  .  et  omnes  consueludines '  to  Auchy-Aumale: 
Archaeologia,  xxvi.  359. 


30 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


gives  the  abbot  of  Preaux,  in  Saleme,  his  "  forfeitures  which  ac- 
cording to  human  law  are  collected  by  ancient  custom  from  homi- 
cides, thieves,  and  such  others  as  are  capitally  convicted,"  and  in 
another  district  hainfara,  arson,  and  mUoc.^^*  The  privileged  area 
of  the  hanleuca  also  existed."* 

Whatever  view  one  may  hold  as  to  the  relative  development  of 
seigniorial  jurisdiction  on  the  two  sides  of  the  Channel  before  the 
Conquest,  there  was  one  field  in  which  England  had  much  to 
learn  from  Normandy,  that  of  ecclesiastical  justice.  We  have  the 
Conqueror's  word  for  it  that  in  England  "  the  episcopal  laws  had 
not  been  observed  properly  nor  according  to  the  precepts  of  the 
sacred  canons,"  and  it  is  generally  recognized  that  we  must 
seek  in  Normandy  the  principles  underlying  the  ordinance  sepa- 
rating the  spiritual  and  temporal  courts  which  he  issued  within 
ten  years  of  his  accession  to  the  EngUsh  throne.  Of  course  the 
Norman  precedents  must  not  be  scanned  too  narrowly  without 
due  regard  to  the  jurisprudence  of  the  Roman  Church  as  a  whole, 
but  it  is  significant  that  in  this  period  this  jurisprudence  came  to 
England  through  Norman  prelates  and  Norman  manuscripts,  as 
has  been  clearly  shown  in  the  case  of  the  Pseudo-Isidorian  decre- 
tals."^ What  the  Norman  practice  then  was  we  can  in  some  meas- 
ure discern  from  the  canons  of  the  coimcil  of  Lillebonne,  issued 
by  an  assembly  of  prelates  and  barons  held  by  William's  com- 
mand in  1080."*  Freeman,  it  is  true,  with  his  splendid  indifference 

Cartulary  of  Preaux  (Archives  of  the  Eure,  H.  711),  nos.  68,  347;  MS.  Lat. 
n.  a.  1929,  no.  250;  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  iii.  97  (cf.  on  p.  96  the  grant  of  Roger  of 
Beaumont);  Valin,  pieces,  no.  4.  For  ullac  see  Appendix  D,  note  16.  Tithes  of 
the  baron's  forfeitures  are  frequently  granted  to  monasteries,  e.  g.,  Le  Prevost, 
Eure,  i.  408  (=  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  41);  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  129. 

See  infra,  p.  49. 

Liebennann,  Geselze,  i.  485,  ii.  440,  531;  Stubbs-Davis,  Select  Charters 
(1913),  p.  99. 

See  the  account  of  MS.  405  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  brought  from  Bee 
to  Canterbury  by  Lanfranc,  and  its  derivatives,  in  H.  Bohmer,  Die  Fdlschungen 
Erzhischof  Lanfranks  von  Canterbury  (Leipzig,  1902),  pp.  61-65.  Norman  copies 
of  Pseudo-Isidore  will  be  found  in  MS.  Lat.  3856  and  MSS.  701-703  at  Rouen. 
For  decretals  of  Alexander  II  addressed  to  the  bishop  of  Coutances,  see  Jaffe- 
Lowenfeld,  nos.  4479,  4480. 

Teulet,  Layettes  du  Tresor  des  Charles,  i.  25,  no.  22,  from  an  early  copy  in  the 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


31 


to  such  ecclesiastical  matters  as  were  not  architectural,  says  that, 
apart  from  the  renewal  of  the  Truce  of  God,  this  council  merely 
pronounced  "  a  great  number  of  enactments  of  the  usual  kind 
but  when  we  recall  that  Henry  II  began  his  great  struggle  with  the 
church  by  decreeing  that  the  provisions  of  the  council  of  Lille- 
bonne  should  be  observ'ed,!^''  we  shall  hardly  dismiss  so  lightly  an 
authoritative  statement  of  the  law  of  the  Conqueror's  day  on 
matters  of  church  and  state.  Unfortimately,  these  decrees,  while 
affording  abundant  evidence  respecting  the  existence  of  a  system 
of  ecclesiastical  courts,  leave  us  in  the  dark  on  some  of  the  matters 
we  most  need  to  understand.  Besides  the  enforcement  of  the 
Truce  of  God,  the  bishop  has  cognizance  of  offenses  committed  in 
churches  and  churchyards,  including  the  disturbance  of  worship 
and  assaults  on  those  going  to  and  from  church.  He  has  his  fines 
from  criminous  and  delinquent  clerks  and  from  offending  mem- 
bers of  a  clerk's  household,  and  dwellers  within  the  church  en- 
closure are  likewise  subject  to  the  '  episcopal  laws.'  Of  the 
offenses  of  laymen  from  which  the  bishop  has  his  fine,  specific 
mention  is  made  of  adultery,  incest,  desertion,  divination,  as- 
saults upon  priests  or  monks,  and  the  burning  of  their  houses.  A 
fine  is  also  due  from  those  who  fail  at  the  ordeal  or  are  excommu- 
nicated for  resistance  to  justice.  The  question  throughout  is  one 
of  fines  to  be  paid  the  bishop,  and  while  in  secular  justice  it  is  a 
fairly  safe  rule  that  he  who  has  the  fines  mil  also  have  the  juris- 
diction, it  is  entirely  possible  that  for  certain  offenses  the  bishop 
should  have  had  fines  from  laymen  who  were  convicted  in  secular 
tribxmals,  just  as  he  had  from  those  who  denied  their  guilt  and 
failed  at  the  ordeal,  and,  later,  from  violators  of  the  Truce  of  God 
convicted  in  the  duke's  court. It  is  hardly  likely,  for  example, 
that  the  fine  to  the  bishop  was  the  only  penalty  for  slaying  a 
clerk. 

Archives  Nationales  attested  by  the  seal  of  Henry  I;  Ordericus,  ii.  316-323;  Bessin, 
Concilia  Rolomagensis  Provinciae,  i.  67;  Mansi,  xx.  555.    Cf.  Tardif,  Etude  siir  les 
sources  de  I'ancien  droit  normand,  i.  39-43. 
Norman  Conquest,  2d  edition,  iv.  657. 

Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  336;  see  infra,  Chapter  V,  note  83.    The  importance  of 
the  council  is  realized  by  H.  W.  C.  Davis,  England  under  the  Normans  and  Angevins, 
PP-  527,  533,  but  his  interpretations  of  its  canons  are  not  always  sound. 
"1  Bessin,  Concilia,  i.  81;  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  c.  71;  Round,  no.  290. 


32 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


Little  is  said  of  the  relation  of  the  clerk  to  lay  courts,  either  in 
civil  or  in  criminal  matters.  With  respect  to  his  secular  holding 
the  priest  is  subject  to  the  court  of  his  lord,  although  if  the  ques- 
tion concerns  the  church  he  can  have  it  brought  before  his  bishop. 
Violations  of  the  forest  laws  by  clerks  are  beyond  the  sphere  of  the 
bishop's  authority,  and  it  would  seem  from  the  decree  of  an 
earlier  coimcil  that  a  clerk  who  exposed  himself  to  the  blood-feud 
could  be  attacked  after  due  notice  to  his  bishop.^^^  a  well  known 
passage  of  WilUam  of  Poitiers  indicates  that  the  Conqueror  was 
in  the  habit  of  interfering  when  the  sentence  of  the  court  Chris- 
tian seemed  to  him  too  light,  and  inflicting  discipline  on  the  bishop 
or  archdeacon  as  well  as  on  the  culprit;  but  specific  instances 
of  this  sort  are  lacking.  When  the  archdeacons  of  the  diocese 
of  Bayeux  consult  Lanfranc  respecting  the  case  of  a  priest  who 
had  committed  homicide  in  self-defense,  the  question  is  not  one 
of  punishment  at  their  hands,  but  simply  how  soon,  if  at  all, 
the  offender  can  be  restored  to  his  priestly  functions,  In  an- 
other case,  before  William,  archbishop  of  Rouen,  a  priest  con- 
victed of  a  variety  of  offenses  suffers  degradation  and  the  loss  of 
his  benefice. 

Throughout  the  canons  of  LUlebonne  runs  the  assertion  of  the 
ultimate  authority  of  the  duke.  The  council  attempts  no  innova- 
tion :  duke,  barons,  and  bishops  are  to  have  the  customs  and  jus- 
tice which  they  have  enjoyed  under  William  and  his  father,  but 

^  '  Ut  etiam  clerici  anna  non  ferant  nec  assaliant  vel  assaliantur  nisi  ipsi  pro- 
meruerint,  neque  etiam  tunc  nisi  facta  proclamatione  apud  episcopum  rationabili- 
ter  ':  Council  of  Lisieux  (1064),  c.  5,  in  Journal  des  savanis,  1901,  p.  517. 

^5  Ed.  Duchesne,  p.  194;  Migne,  cxlix.  1241.  The  participation  of  the  duke  in 
ecclesiastical  discipline  is  also  implied  ia  Richard  II's  charter  for  Mont-Saint- 
Michel:  Neustria  Pia,  p.  378. 

Lanfranc,  Ep.  62,  Migne,  cl.  550.    Cf.  Migne,  cxivii.  266  (1061). 

^=  '  Notum  sit  omnibus  quod  Gausfredus  presbyter  deVerhaco  .  .  .  adiudicium 
utrinque  venerunt  coram  Guillelmo  Rotomagensi  archiepiscopo  presbyter  scihcet 
et  monachi.  .  .  .  Ibi  presbyter  accusatus  atque  convictus  de  multis  criminibus  tam 
per  se  ipsum  perpetratis  quam  sua  consensione  per  quendam  filiam  suum,  videlicet 
de  furtis,  de  sacrilegiis,  de  fomicationibus,  et  de  contaminatione  ecclesie  sue,  cum 
se  de  his  nulla  posset  ratione  purgare,  ab  ordine  suo  depositus  est  ab  archiepiscopo. 
.  .  .  Veniens  in  curiam  regis  Anglorum  apud  castrum  NieUam  guerpivdt  coram 
omnibus  totum  omnino  beneficium  vel  quicquid  reclamare  poterat  ullo  modo  in 
ecclesia  nostra  de  Verliaco.  Insuper  coram  tota  ipsa  curia  iuravit  non  se  quicquam 
eorum  ultra  reclamaturum.'  MS.  Baluze  77,  f.  61,  from  cartulary  of  Marmoutier. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


33 


the  judicial  privileges  are  held  by  virtue  of  the  duke's  concession, 
and  in  case  of  dispute  as  to  their  extent  the  court  of  the  duke  is  to 
decide.^26  'pj^g  bishop's  rights  over  laymen  were  a  matter  of  cus- 
tom, and  varied  from  place  to  place.  In  many  parishes  the  char- 
ters show  that  he  had,  in  whole  or  in  part,  lost  his  jurisdiction,  for 
the  episcopal  fines  and  forfeitures  were  valuable  rights,  like  his 
synodal  dues  and  visitation  fees,'"  and  were  often  granted  in  fief 
to  laymen  or  handed  over  to  monasteries  in  the  form  of  exemp- 
tion from  episcopal  consuetudines,^^^  just  as  ducal  consuetudines 
were  granted  by  the  duke.  Thus  Fecamp  claimed  certain  churches 
free  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  archbishop  of  Rouen,""  and 
by  privilege  of  Archbishop  Robert  the  monks  of  Saint-Pere  of 
Chartres  held  the  church  of  Fontenay  in  the  Vexin  free  from  bishop 
and  archdeacon. Robert  I  was  said  to  have  given  Mont-Saint- 
Michel  the  *  episcopal  laws  '  in  half  of  Guernsey. The  abbess 
of  La  Trinite  had  the  fines  from  episcopal  forfeitures  in  two 
parishes  of  Caen,'^^  and  the  abbot  of  Saint-Etienne  had  similar 

So  the  author  of  the  Acta  archiepiscoporiim  says  of  William,  after  the  diflS- 
culties  between  the  archbishop  and  the  monks  of  Rouen  in  1073:  '  In  his  omnibus 
semper  apud  ipsum  cautum  extitit  ne  quid  sibi  archiepiscopus  quasi  sub  ecclesiastico 
vigore  in  causis  huius  ecclesie  insolenter  arrogaverit.'  Mabillon,  Vetera  Analecta, 
p.  226;  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  35.  On  the  author  see  Vacandard,  in  Revue  catholique 
de  Normandie,  iii.  121  ff. 

^  On  which  cf.  the  protest  of  the  canons  of  Chartres  in  H.  F.,  x.  498;  and  Ful- 
bert  of  Chartres,  Episiolae,  nos.  48,  115  (Migne,  cxli.  225,  265). 

Supra,  notes  12-15.  Cf.  council  of  Rouen,  1096,  c.  6:  '  NuUus  laicus  habeat 
consuetudines  episcopales  vel  iustitiam  que  pertinet  ad  curam  animarum  '  (Orderi- 
cus,  iii.  473).  For  England  cf.  the  grant  of  '  placita  hominum  de  christianitate  '  in 
Davis,  no.  71. 

Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  y;^,  126,  2^1;  Neustria  Pia,  pp.  ^^g,  4^1;  Sauvage, 
Troarn,  p.  356;  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur,  pieces,  nos.  46,  48;  Musee  des  archives  departe- 
mentales,  no.  25  (Lessay);  Bry,  Histoire  du  Perche,  p.  70.  The  following  grant  of 
1053  is  more  specific:  '  aecclesiam  Sancte  Marie  de  Berlo  et  altare  et  omnes  reditus 
eorum,  decimas  scilicet,  primitias,  sepulturam,  sinodalia,  circada,  et  omnes  forfac- 
turas  ad  ipsam  aecclesiam  pertinentes,  hoc  est:  sacrilegium,  latrocinium,  infrac- 
turam  cimiterii,  et  cum  omnibus  commissis  episcopo  pertinentibus  '  (charter  of 
William  of  La  Ferte-Mace,  Denis,  Charles  de  S.-Julien  de  Tours,  no.  24;  Reime 
catholique,  i.  168). 

See  Appendix  B. 

"1  Cartulaire,  ed.  Guerard,  i.  115;  Gallia  Christiana,  viii.  instr.  297. 
"2  Cartulary  (MS.  Avranches  210),  f.  io6v. 
iM  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  71. 


34 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


privileges."^  In  such  cases  the  bishop  sought  to  retain  the  ulti- 
mate authority,  whose  symbol,  the  administration  of  the  ordeal 
at  his  cathedral  church,  was  specifically  reserved  to  him  by  the 
coimcil  of  Lillebonne;  yet  two  years  later  the  abbot  of  Saint- 
Wandrille  estabUshed  in  the  duke's  court  his  ancient  right  to 
admiaister  the  ordeal  in  the  four  parishes  subject  to  his  jurisdic- 
tion."^ That  the  bishop's  jurisdiction  was  comprehensive  and 
attendance  at  his  court  no  Ught  matter,  appears  from  the  case  of 
Mont-Saint-Michel:  the  residents  of  the  Moimt  complained  of 
their  frequent  summons  to  Avranches  as  parties  or  witnesses  in 
the  bishop's  court  in  all  matters  contra  christianitatem,  and  of  the 
bishop's  refusal  to  accept  excuses  in  time  of  invasion  or  storm,  so 
that  they  were  constantly  being  fined  or  pimished  on  this  account; 
until  in  1061  the  bishop  consented  to  make  the  abbot  his  arch- 
deacon for  the  Mount,  reserving  to  himself,  however,  the  admin- 
istration of  the  ordeal,  the  hearing  of  matrimonial  causes,  and  the 

Gallia  CkrisHania,  xi.  instr.  73;  charter  of  Odo,  bishop  of  Bayeux  (copies  in 
Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H.  1825;  MS.  Fr.  n.  a.  20218,  f.  6):  '  Trado  ista  que  hie  de- 
termino,  videlicet  de  omnibus  in  prefatis  ecclesiis  domibus  terris  habitatoribus  om- 
nium forisfacturarum  de  criminalibus  peccatis  vel  de  non  criminalibus  prodeuntium 
pecuniam  et  de  ipsis  omnibus  habitatoribus  de  non  criminalibus  peccatis  penitentie 
iniunctionem.  Addo  etiam  ut  ex  ipsis  criminalibus  peccatis  quandocunque  in  prefatis 
ecclesiis  domibus  terris  audiri  contigerint  ab  archidiacono  Baiocensi,  abbas  vel  prior 
predicti  cenobii,  non  ipse  super  quo  crimen  auditum  fuerit,  moneatur  et  ibidem  ab 
utroque  disposito  termino  congruo  ac  prefixo  die  conveniant  monachus  et  archidia- 
conus  et  in  ipsa  parrochia  in  qua  crimen  auditum  fuerit  predictis  presentibus  in- 
quiratur,  inquisito  discutiatur,  et  discusso,  si  Lnde  iudicium  portandum  prodierit 
vel  cognitio  peccati  potuerit,  Baiocensis  ecclesia  ut  decet  requiratur  vel  causa 
examinationis  vel  gratia  consequende  reconcUiationis.'  Cf.  the  similar  charter  of 
Geoffrey,  bishop  of  Coutances  (in  charter  of  Archbishop  WUliam,  copied  in  Archives 
of  the  Calvados,  H.  1825) :  '  De  his  autem  omnibus  supradictis  si  placitum  contin- 
gat,  in  curia  abbatis  Cadomi  agatur  et  forisfacturam  si  contingat  abbas  habebit. 
Si  iudicium  inde  portandum  prodierit,  ad  Hulmum  ut  constitutum  est  requiratur, 
vidente  archidiacono,  et  penitentia  detur.'  Early  in  the  twelfth  century  Abbot 
Eudo  '  separavit  Robertum  Blundum  ab  uxore  sua  coram  Osberto  archidiacono, 
qui  fuit  ibi  in  loco  episcopi  Ricardi  filii  comitis,'  bishop  of  Bayeux  (DeviUe,  Analyse, 
P-  32). 

See  the  charters  quoted  in  the  preceding  note,  and  the  arrangement  between 
the  archbishop  of  Rouen  and  Bee,  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  17.  There  is  a  curious 
account  of  the  holding  of  an  ordeal  at  Bayeux  before  archdeacons,  by  order  of  the 
duke's  court,  in  Archaeologia,  xxvii.  26.  WOliam's  ordinance  separating  the  tempo- 
ral and  spiritual  courts  in  England  likewise  reserves  the  ordeal  for  the  cathedral. 

Bessin,  Concilia,  i.  76;  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  39  (cf.  no.  40). 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


35 


imposition  of  sentence  in  other  cases,  It  appears  from  other 
documents  that  matrimonial  matters  were  an  important  part  of 
the  work  of  the  courts  Christian.'^* 

The  duke's  assertion  of  authority  over  church  courts  and  his 
interference,  at  the  council  of  Lillebonne,  in  the  enforcement  of 
sacerdotal  celibacy      are  only  one  phase  of  an  ecclesiastical 

'  Cogebantur  enim  venire  Abrincas  ad  respondendum  de  quacunque  accusa- 
tione  contra  christianitatem,  nec  excusare  poterat  eos  mare  insurgens  nec  Britonum 
insidie  quia  preveniri  ac  provideri  poterant,  et  ita  sepe  in  forifacta  et  emendationes 
episcopales  Lncidebant  et  sepe  iuramentis  fatigabantur.  .  .  .  Episcopus  vero  pre- 
fatus,  ut  erat  animo  et  genere  nobilis,  petitioni  abbatis  annuit  et  archidiaconum 
suum  in  Monte  eum  fecit,  ita  tamen  ut  quod  bene  non  faceret  vel  non  posset  epis- 
copus corrigeret  Abrincis  et  ecclesiastico  iuditio  terminaret.  De  coniugiis  autem 
illicitis  si  qui  legales  testes  procederent,  apud  episcopum  audirentur  et  per  sacra- 
mentum  ipsorum  lege  dissolveretur  quod  contra  legem  presumptum  erat.  De 
criminalibus  culpis  venirent  ad  iuditium  et  sententiam  episcopi  confessi  vel  con- 
victi  coram  suo  archidiacono,  excommunicati  ab  episcopo  ad  eius  satisfactionem  et 
absolutionem  venirent.  Iuditium  ferri  igniti  et  aque  ferventis  Abrincis  portaretur.' 
MS.  Lat.  14832,  f.  183V;  Migne,  cxlvii.  265;  Pigeon,  Le  diocese  d'Avranches,  ii.  658. 
It  should  be  noted  that  Richard  II's  charter  had  granted  to  the  abbot  aU  ducal  and 
episcopal  consuetudines  in  the  Moimt,  including  '  omnes  leges  omnesque  forisfactu- 
ras  clericorum  ac  laicorum  virorum  ac  mulierum  eiusdem  burgi '  in  terms  which 
suggest  a  later  interpolation  (Cartulary,  f.  2iv;  Neuslria  Pia,  p.  378;  Mabillon, 
Annales,  iv.  651.  Cf.  the  description  of  these  liberties  in  the  Roman  du  Monl- 
Saint-Michel,  lines  2406  fT.).  On  the  other  hand,  the  statement  of  the  rights  of  the 
bishop  of  Avranches  over  the  abbeys  of  his  diocese,  preserved  in  a  MS.  of  the  twelfth 
century  in  the  Vatican  (MS.  Regina  946,  f .  73V)  states  the  matter  from  the  bishop's 
point  of  view:  '  Salva  est  autem  episcopo  Abrincensi  in  predicta  abbatia  in  omnibus 
canonica  iusticia.'   See  Appendix  K. 

The  agreement  of  1061  is  of  possible  interest  in  relation  to  the  use  of  synodal 
witnesses  in  Normandy;  see  Chapter  VI,  note  iig. 

See  the  case  from  Caen  cited  in  note  134,  supra;  Barret,  Carhdaire  de  Mar- 
moutier  pour  le  Perche,  no.i8(i092-ii  00) ;  and  the  notice  of  the  grant  by  the  vicomks 
to  Saint-Sauveur  of  freedom  '  ab  omnibus  placitis  et  querelis,  videlicet  de  trevia,  de 
adulteriis,  et  de  omnibus  aliis  rebus  que  pertinent  ad  christianitatem,  ita  ut  mo- 
nachi  habeant  placita  in  curia  sua  omnemque  emendacionem '  (Delisle,  S.-Sauveur, 
pieces,  no.  46).  The  penance  imposed  by  the  bishop  of  Seez  upon  the  slayer  of  three 
pUgrims  to  Mont-Saint-Michel  Ulustrates  another  phase  of  the  bishop's  jurisdic- 
tion: Lanfranc,  Epistolae,  no.  9  (Migne,  cl.  517).  Cf.  an  agreement  of  1084  be- 
tween the  count  of  Anjou  and  the  bishop  of  Angers:  L.  Halphen,  L'Anjou  au  XI" 
siecle,  p.  314,  no.  242. 

H.  Bohmer,  Kirche  und  Staat  in  England  und  in  der  Normandie  (Leipzig,  1899), 
p.  127  f.  On  p.  36,  note  2,  he  questions  the  authenticity,  in  its  present  form,  of  the 
canon  of  LiUebonne  (c.  3)  which  deals  with  this  subject.  The  last  sentence  is  some- 
what perplexing,  but  it  appears  in  the  text  as  confirmed  by  Henry  I  (Teulet,  Lay- 
ettes, i,  no.  22)  and  may  perhaps  mean  that  the  judgment  of  parishioners  and  the 


36 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


supremacy  to  which  the  eleventh  century  affords  no  parallel."" 
A  familiar  passage  of  Eadmer  assigns  a  Norman  origin  to  the 
customs  which  the  Conqueror  established  with  respect  to  church 
matters  in  England  —  control  over  councils  and  appointments, 
necessity  of  the  king's  approval  for  the  excommimication  of  his 
barons  and  for  the  reception  of  letters  or  legates  from  Rome  — 
and  there  is  Httle  to  add  to  what  is  already  known  concerning  his 
policy  in  these  respects  in  Normandy.^^^  Wilham  was  regularly 
present  at  the  meetings  of  church  coimcils,  and  their  decrees  were 
issued  with  his  sanction.  He  not  only  appointed  the  bishops  and 
abbots,  like  the  stronger  princes  of  his  time,  but  was  able  on  occa- 
sion to  secure  their  deposition.  The  monasteries  were  vmder  the 
special  protection  of  the  duke,  and  this  was  so  effective  as  to  leave 
little  room  in  Normandy  for  the  avoues  who  play  so  large  a  part  in 
monastic  and  feudal  history  elsewhere."^  No  bishop  succeeded  in 
getting  permanent  possession  of  a  county  or  even  in  acquiring  the 
full  rights  of  a  count  in  his  episcopal  city,  where  the  presence  of 
the  vicomte  was  a  constant  reminder  of  the  duke's  authority  and 
might,  as  at  Rouen  in  1073,  even  serve  to  protect  the  prelate  in 
time  of  disturbance."^  If  we  may  judge  by  the  case  of  the  see  of 

penalty  prescribed  in  the  preceding  clause  had  been  forced  by  the  king  upon  the 
unwilling  bishops. 

"Das  landesherrliche  Kirchenregiment  war  hier  niithin\'iel  starker  entwickelt, 
als  in  den  anderen  Staaten  des  Kontinents:  "  Bohmer,  p.  33.  The  absence  of  such 
control  over  the  bishops  was  a  constant  source  of  weakness  to  Normandy's  powerful 
neighbor,  the  count  of  Flanders:  Lot,  Etudes  sitr  le  regne  de  Hngiies  Capet,  p.  219. 
Historia  Novorum,  p.  g;  Liebermann,  Gesetze,  i.  520. 

1*2  Bohmer's  discussion  is  the  best.  The  councU  of  Lisieux  of  1064,  discovered 
and  published  by  Delisle  {Journal  des  savants,  1901,  p.  516),  should  be  added  to  his 
list  of  councils.  On  the  appointment  of  bishops  see  also  Imbart  de  la  Tour,  Les 
elections  episcopales  dans  Veglise  de  France  (Paris,  1891),  pp.  247,  273,  291-294,  455. 

Brussel,  Usage  des  fiefs,  ii.  810;  F.  Senn,  L'institution  des  avoueries  ecclesias- 
tiques  en  France  (Paris,  1903),  p.  95  ff.;  both  of  whom  insist  too  absolutely  upon  the 
exclusion  of  the  avou£  from  early  Normandy.  See  \'alin,  pp.  85-88;  and  Sauvage, 
Troarn,  p.  61.  The  absence  of  the  vidame  is  also  noteworthy:  Senn,  L'institu- 
tion des  vidaniies  p.  98  f.    See,  however,  below,  p.  167. 

1"  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  34;  on  the  date  see  Vacandard,  Revue  catholique,  iii.  118 
(1893).  Geoffrey  de  Montbray  had  no  land  in  Coutances  when  he  became  bishop, 
and  was  obliged  to  purchase  what  he  needed  from  the  duke:  Gallia  Christiana,  xi. 
instr.  219.  The  bishop  of  Lisieux  had  greater  freedom:  Stapleton,  i,  p.  clxix; 
H.  de  Forme\'ille,  Histoire  de  Vancien  eveche-comte  de  Lisieux  (Lisieux,  1873),  pp. 
dxlvii,  315. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


37 


Bayeux,  the  bishops  lost  rather  than  gamed  by  the  anarchy  of 
the  Conqueror's  successor,  and  when  bishops  appear  taking  an 
important  part  in  secular  affairs  in  the  twelfth  century,  it  is  as  the 
agents  and  justices  of  the  duke  and  not  as  his  rivals. 

One  function  of  the  Norman  ecclesiastical  courts  found  no 
occasion  for  its  exercise  in  England,"^  namely  their  enforcement 
of  the  Truce  of  God.  Introduced  into  Normandy  in  its  Flemish 
form  early  in  the  Conqueror's  reign,^^^  the  Truce  was  reafifirmed 
by  councils  of  1064  and  1080  and  elaborated  at  the  council  of 
Rouen  in  1096.  The  original  penalties  were  ecclesiastical  and  their 
imposition  was  the  duty  of  the  bishop  and  his  deputies:  before 
1067  the  bishop  of  Evreux  is  tr>'ing  to  punish  monks  for  its  infrac- 
tion;"^ vmder  Henry  I  the  bishop's  claim  to  his  fine  is  clearly 
recognized;  and  as  late  as  1233  the  bishop  of  Avranches  and  his 
rural  deans  assert  their  immemorial  right  to  hold  placita  treuge}^^ 
The  duke,  however,  has  likewise  an  interest  in  maintaining  so 
important  an  adjunct  to  public  order:  the  coimcil  of  Lillebonne 
provides  that  the  lord  of  the  land  shall  aid  the  bishop  in  coercing 
recalcitrant  offenders,  and,  failing  his  aid,  the  vicomte  of  the  duke 
shall  take  the  matter  into  his  hands;  while  by  1135  the  pimish- 
ment  of  serious  violations  has  become  the  function  of  the  ducal 

"6  Livre  noir,  pp.  xli,  xlii. 

On  the  absence  of  the  Truce  of  God  in  England,  see  F.  Liebermann,  Ueher  die 
Leges  Edwardi  Confessoris,  p.  59  fl.;  Pollock  and  Maitland,  i.  75  f.  Their  conclu- 
sions do  not  seem  to  me  invalidated  by  what  Powicke  says  on  the  subject  {Loss  of 
Normandy,  p.  94),  although  his  general  views  on  the  Norman  phase  of  the  question 
appear  sound.    Cf.  Liebermann,  Gesetze,  ii.  687  f. 

Bessin,  Concilia,  i.  39;  Mansi,  xix.  597;  cf.  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  202; 
Acta  Sanctorum,  August,  iv.  834;  Analecla  Bollandiana,  xxii.  438;  M.  G.  H.,  Scrip- 
tores,  viii.  403.  On  the  date  of  the  council,  which  is  not  later  than  1047  ^.nd  is  prob- 
ably of  1042  or  1043,  see  Tardif,  Etude,  p.  29  f.,  where  the  parallelism  with  the 
Flemish  form  of  the  text  is  overlooked.  The  latest  edition  of  the  Norman  ordinance, 
that  of  the  M .  G.  H.,  Constilutiones  et  Acta  Publica,  i.  600,  does  not  pay  sufBcient 
attention  to  Norman  MSS.,  such  as  MS.  Rouen  1383,  f.  9,  a  MS.  of  the  eleventh 
century  from  Jumieges,  or  MS.  Lat.  1928,  f.  173V  (used  by  Bessin).  The  provisions 
of  the  various  councils  are  analyzed  by  Tardif,  p.  30  ff. 

Migne,  cxliii.  1387. 

Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  c.  71;  Round,  no.  290.   Cf.  DeUsle,  in  B.  E.  C,  xiii. 

102. 

L.  Auvray,  Registres  de  Gregoire  IX,  no.  1308;  Collection  Moreau,  mclxxxviii. 

68. 


38  NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS  ^ 

court,  and  the  bishop's  interest  is  merely  pecuniary. "As  it 
appears  in  the  first  part  of  the  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  the  Truce 
of  God  has  ahnost  become  the  peace  of  the  duke." 

While,  however,  the  ducal  authority  welcomed  such  aid  in  the 
difficult  task  of  maintaining  order,  it  did  not  owe  its  supremacy 
to  an  ecclesiastical  principle  imported  from  without;  Normandy 
was  not  one  of  the  countries  where  the  Landfrieden  sprang  from 
the  Gottesjrieden.  In  the  reign  of  Robert  I  we  see  the  duke's  mes- 
senger separating  combatants  and  putting  them  imder  oath  to 
abide  by  the  decision  of  his  court, while  their  repression  of  dis- 
order and  their  rigorous  administration  of  justice  are  the  constant 
refrain  of  Dudo's  eulogies  of  the  first  three  dukes.^^  From  the 
Conqueror's  reign  we  have  his  law  limiting  the  blood  feud  in 
jQy^  155  g^Qfj  (-]jg  numerous  restrictions  upon  private  war  formu- 
lated in  the  Consuetudines  et  iusticiey^  According  to  these  no  one 
was  allowed  to  go  out  to  seek  his  enemy  with  hauberk  and  stand- 
ard and  soimding  horn.  Assaults  and  ambushes  were  not  per- 
mitted in  the  duke's  forests,  nor  could  a  joust  be  made  an  occasion 
for  an  ambuscade.  Captives  were  not  to  be  taken  in  a  feud,  nor 
could  arms,  horses,  or  property  be  carried  off  from  a  combat. 
Burning,  plunder,  and  waste  were  forbidden  in  pursuing  claims  to 
land,  and,  except  for  open  crimes,  no  one  could  be  condemned  to 
loss  of  limb  save  by  judgment  of  the  proper  ducal  or  baronial 
court.  Moreover  castles  and  strongholds  could  be  buUt  only  by 
the  duke's  Ucense  and  were  required  to  be  handed  over  to  him  on 
demand,  and  he  could  also  exact  hostages  as  a  guarantee  of  a 
baron's  loyalty. Coinage  was  his,i^  and  everything  relating 

Supra,  note  149.  Tardif,  p.  49. 

Vita  Herluini,  in  Mabillon,  Ada  Sanctorum  Ordinis  S.  Benedicti,  vi.  2,  p.  348. 

Ed.  Lair,  pp.  171, 183, 196,  200  f.,  205,  245,  248,  255,  259,  261-264,  266,  268  f., 
272,  280,  290-293.  On  the  nature  of  their  legislation  against  disorder  see  Tardif, 
&ude,  pp.  14-21. 

Duchesne,  p.  1018;  see  below.  Appendix  D,  note  9.  Cf.  the  restrictions  upon 
private  war  in  the  case  of  clerks,  councU  of  Lisieux,  1064,  cc.  5,  7  {Journal  des 
savants,  1901,  p.  517).  On  the  Conqueror's  early  legislation  see  Tardif,  Etude, 
p.  31  f.  1"  Appendix  D. 

Respecting  the  Conqueror's  control  over  castles  compare  William  of  Jumieges 
(bk.  vii,  c.  I,  ed.  Marx,  p.  115  f.)  on  the  beginning  of  his  reign  with  Ordericus  (iii. 
262)  on  conditions  after  his  death.  Appendix  D,  p.  280. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR  39 

thereto.  There  was,  we  have  already  seen,  a  well  developed  ducal 
jurisdiction,  and  the  maintenance  of  the  duke's  judicial  suprem- 
acy was  only  one  form  of  the  persistent  assertion  of  his  ultimate 
authority  over  his  barons.  The  extermination  of  disorder  and  vio- 
lence was  doubtless  less  complete  than  the  Conqueror's  panegyrists 
would  have  us  believe, but  the  peace  of  the  duke  was  already  a 
fact  as  well  as  a  theory. 

An  authority  such  as  the  Conqueror  wielded  in  church  and  state 
required  a  considerable  income  for  its  maintenance,  and  while 
there  are  no  fiscal  records  for  Normandy  earlier  than  1180,  it  is 
possible  to  trace  back  to  William's  time  most  of  the  sources  of 
revenue  which  appear  in  detail  in  the  Exchequer  Rolls  a  century 
later. The  duke  had  his  domains  and  forests,  scattered  through- 
out the  duchy  and  sometimes  of  considerable  extent,  which  might 
yield  a  money  rent  as  well  as  a  great  variety  of  payments  in  kind. 
He  had  his  mills,  such  as  the  eight  '  fiscal  mills  '  on  the  Eau  de 
Robec  at  Rouen,  his  salt-pans,  his  fishing-rights  at  certain  points 
on  the  rivers  and  on  the  coast,  and  his  monopoly  of  the  taking  of 
whales  and  other  '  great  fish.'  Wreck  and  treasure-trove  were  his, 
as  well  as  the  profits  of  coinage.^"  He  had  large  possessions  in 
certain  towns  —  he  could  sell  half  of  Coutances  to  its  bishop  — 
in  addition  to  tolls,  rights  over  markets  and  fairs,  and  other  urban 
consuetudines}^^  Bernagium  for  his  hunting  dogs  was  a  burden  on 

William  of  Poitiers,  ed.  Duchesne,  p.  193  (Migne,  cxlix.  1240);  Ordericus, 
ii.  177;  Wace,  ed.  Andresen,  lines  5348-5352. 

160  See  the  classical  study  of  Delisle,  Des  revenus  publics  en  Normandie  au  dou- 
zieme  siecle,  in  B.  E.  C,  x.  173-210,  257-289,  xi.  400-451,  xiii.  97-135.  On  the 
domain  of  the  early  dukes,  see  Prentout,  Elude  sur  Dudon,  p.  265. 

"1  On  the  ducal  rights  over  coinage,  see  Appendix  D. 

1"  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  219. 

E.  g.,  in  a  charter  of  1068  for  Troarn,  '  in  Falesia  totam  terram  Wesman  et 
consuetudines  eius  ad  regem  pertinentes  ':  Sauvage,  Troarn,  p.  350.  The  follow- 
ing, relating  to  Bayeux,  is  more  specific:  '  Et  ille  bene  scit  domos  infra  civitatem  et 
terram  extra  civitatem  positam  semper  fuisse  quietas  ab  omni  consuetudine 
Normannorum  principis,  scUicet  theloneo,  gildo,  molta  molendinorum,  et  custodia 
vigiliarum,  et  dominus  predicte  terre  si  faceret  adducere  vinum  suum  de  Argencis 
esset  quietus  suum  carragium  apud  Cadomum  et  apud  Baiocas  '  {Archaeologia, 
xxvii.  27).  For  Caen  see  H.  Legras,  Le  bourgage  de  Caen  (Paris,  1911),  pp.  39-42, 
52,  74  ff. 


40 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


the  land/^*  as  was  also  an  exaction  called  gravaria}^^  The  fines 
and  forfeitures  of  justice  and  the  receipts  from  feudal  dues  were 
naturally  important. 

How  the  revenues  of  the  Norman  dukes  were  collected  and  ad- 
ministered is  a  question  of  great  interest,  particularly  to  the  stu- 
dent of  English  institutions.  Since  the  days  of  the  Dialogue  on  the 
Exchequer  there  have  not  been  wanting  those  who  have  main- 
tained that  the  English  Exchequer  was  organized  on  the  model  of 
an  earlier  Norman  institution;  and  while  recent  investigations 
have  traced  portions  of  the  Exchequer  system  back  to  Anglo- 
Saxon  times  and  have  suggested  that  an  elaborate  fiscal  system 
is  more  likely  to  have  grown  out  of  the  collection  of  a  heavy  tax 
like  Danegeld  than  out  of  the  more  ordinary  and  miscellaneous 
set  of  revenues  which  we  have  just  enumerated/^*  the  possi- 
bihty  of  Norman  influence  upon  the  English  Exchequer  has  by  no 
means  been  eliminated  from  the  discussion.  The  Norman  evi- 
dence, it  is  true,  is  of  the  most  meager  sort,"^  the  absence  of  any- 
thing like  the  Domesday  survey  being  the  greatest  gap ;  but  the 
argument  from  silence  is  especially  dangerous  where  the  destruc- 
tion of  records  has  been  so  great  as  in  Normandy,  and  it  is  well  to 
bear  in  mind  that,  save  for  the  accident  which  has  preserved  a 
single  Pipe  Roll  of  Henry  I,  the  existence  of  the  English  Excheq- 
uer is  barely  known  before  Henry  II.  A  ducal  treasury  appears  in 
Normandy  as  early  as  Richard  II,  who  gives  a  hundred  pounds 
from  his  camera  to  redeem  lands  of  Saint-Benigne  of  Dijon, and 

164  jfjffa,  Appendix  D,  p.  279;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  2;  Monasticon,  vii.  1074; 
Liber  Albus  of  Le  Mans,  no.  i;  charter  of  William  I  for  Saint-Etienne,  Archives  of 
the  Calvados,  H.  1830,  2-2  ('  quietum  ab  omni  gravaria  et  bernagio  ');  charter  of 
William  Rufus  for  Bee,  Davis,  Regesta,  no.  425  {infra,  p.  82). 

DuCange,  Glossariiim,  under  'gravaria';  Stapleton,  i,  pp.  Ixxxvii,  xc\Ti, 
cxxviii,  cbcxxi;  P.  de  Farcy,  Abbayes  de  I'eveche  de  Bayeux,  Cerisy,  p.  81  f.  (before 
1066);  Round,  Calendar,  nos.  117,  1175;  B.  E.  C,  xiii.  120-122. 

Bk.  i,  c.  4,  ed.  Hughes,  Crump,  and  Johnson,  p.  66. 
IS''  See  especially  Round,  Commune  of  London,  p.  62  ff.;  and  R.  L.  Poole,  The 
Exchequer  in  the  Twelfth  Century  (Oxford,  191 2),  chs.  2,  3. 

168  Vinogradoff,  English  Society  in  the  Eleventh  Century,  p.  140. 

The  name  exchequer  appears  in  Normandy  in  a  document  of  ca.  1130: 
Round,  E.  H.  R.,  xiv.  426;  infra,  Chapter  III,  note  18.  An  exchequer  roll  of  1136 
was  cited  in  the  eighteenth  century,  M.  A.  N.,  xvi,  p.  xxx.   See  below,  p.  175. 

'  Tactus  pater  meus  divina  inspiratione  dedit  de  camera  sua  predicto  Attoni 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


41 


grants  to  Fecamp  permanently  the  tithe  of  his  camera."^  The 
latter  grant,  which  has  come  down  in  the  original,  is  particularly 
interesting,  for  the  duke  goes  on  to  define  the  camera  as  compris- 
ing everything  given  to  him  "  by  reason  of  the  service  of  any- 
thing, whether  lands  purchased  or  fines  or  gifts  or  any  sort  of 
transaction  "  —  in  other  words,  any  extraordinary  or  occasional 
addition  to  his  treasure. The  profits  of  coinage  are  separately 
reckoned,  and  the  fiscalis  census  and  "  what  are  anciently  called 
customs  "  are  expressly  excluded.  It  would  be  rash  to  attempt  to 
define  too  closely  the  content  of  the  census  and  the  customs,  but 
the  census  must  at  least  have  covered  the  returns  from  the 
demesne  and  forests,  and  the  customs  would  naturally  include 
the  profits  of  tolls  and  markets  and  justice  —  altogether  much  the 
sort  of  thing  which  was  later  comprised  within  the  farm  of  the 
vicomte  or  prevote.  The  duke  plainly  knows  the  difference  between 
his  ordinary  and  his  extraordinary  sources  of  income.  So  a  cen- 
tury and  a  half  later  we  find  that  returns  from  the  mint  and  re- 
ceipts of  the  camera  are  separately  accounted  for;  the  Exchequer 
Rolls  record  only  the  revenues  gathered  by  the  local  officers. 

Can  we  discover  in  the  eleventh  century  any  indication  of  sys- 
tem in  the  collection  of  these  fixed  sources  of  revenue  ?  We  may 
dismiss  at  the  outset,  as  the  report  of  a  later  age,  Wace's  picture 
of  Richard  II  shut  up  in  a  tower  with  his  vicomtes  and  prevols  and 

centum  libras  nummorum.'  Charter  of  Robert  I,  MS.  1656  of  the  Bibliotheque 
Sainte-Genevieve  at  Paris,  p.  46;  printed,  inaccurately,  in  Deville,  Analyse,  p.  34. 
Cf.  Appendix  C,  no.  4. 

'  Concede  gtiam  decimas  monet?  nostrae  ex  integro  et  decimas  nostre  camere, 
videlicet  de  omnibus  quecumque  michi  alicuius  rei  servitio  dabuntur,  videlicet  aut 
emptarum  terrarum  aut  emendarum  aut  cuiuslibetcumque  negotii  sive  dono 
muneris  gratis  dati  excepto  fiscali  censu  et  exceptis  his  quae  costumas  antiquitus 
dicunt.  Do  et  decimas  telonei  de  burgo  qui  dicitur  Cadumus.'  Charter  of  1027  for 
Fecamp,  Musee  de  la  Benedictine,  no.  2  ter;  Neuslria  Pia,  p.  217;  infra,  Appendix 
B,  no.  5.  The  grant  of  the  toU  of  Caen  shows  that  tolls  are  not  included  in  the 
receipts  of  the  camera.  Cf .  the  grant  by  Robert  I  of '  decimam  denariorum  suorum  ' 
to  the  canons  of  Rouen:  Le  Prevost,  Ei<re,  ii.  520. 

1"  So  when  Nigel  grants  Ceaux  to  Mont-Saint-Michel  a  payment  is  made  to 
William  I's  camera:  '  Pro  cuius  rei  concessu  dedit  prefato  Guillelmo  centum  et  1*® 
libras  quas  accepit  Radulfus  camerarius  '  (MS.  Avranches  210,  f.  107);  cf.  the 
ctihicularii  who  are  ordered  to  make  a  payment  from  Robert's  treasury  (William  of 
Jumieges,  ed.  Marx,  p.  107);  and  the  ministri  camere  sue  who  draw  up  the  descrip- 
tion of  William's  treasure  in  1087  {De  obitu  Willelmi,  ibid.,  p.  146), 


42 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


going  over  their  accounts;  but  it  is  nevertheless  possible,  by 
working  back  from  documents  of  the  twelfth  century,  to  reach  cer- 
tain conclusions  with  respect  to  the  fiscal  system  of  the  Con- 
queror's reign.  In  the  first  place  it  is  clear  that  the  farm  of  the 
vicomte  existed  imder  WilUam  I,  for  we  know  from  a  charter  of 
Henry  I  that  certain  fixed  items  in  the  later  rolls,  to  wit  twelve 
poimds  in  the  farm  and  twenty  shillings  in  the  toll  of  Argentan 
and  sixty  shillings  and  tenpence  in  the  toll  of  Exmes,  had  been 
settled  as  alms  to  the  canons  of  Seez  by  grant  of  his  father  and 
mother.i^^  Permanent  charges  of  this  sort,  either  in  the  form  of 
tithes  or  of  definite  amounts,  are  frequently  recorded  against  the 
farms  in  the  Norman  rolls  of  the  twelfth  century,  as  in  the  English 
Pipe  Rolls  of  the  same  period,  but  whereas  in  the  Enghsh  rolls 
such  fixed  alms  are  of  recent  creation,  in  Normandy  they  can  often 
be  traced  back  into  the  eleventh  century.  Thus  Saint-Wandrille 
produced  charters  of  Richard  II  to  secure  its  title  to  the  tithes  of 
the  toll  of  Falaise,  Exmes,  Argentan, and  the  Hiesmois,  of  the 
vicomtes  and  tolls  of  Dieppe  and  Arques,  and  of  the  fair  of  Caen.^^^ 
By  grant  of  the  same  prince  Fecamp  received  the  tithe  of  the  toU 
of  Caen,"^  and  Jumieges  the  tithes  of  the  prtootes  of  Bayeux  and 

1"  Ed.  Andresen,  lines  2009-2012.  The  early  form  of  the  passage  (William  of 
Jumieges,  ed.  Marx,  p.  89)  speaks  merely  of  '  quanimdam  renim  publicarum  totius 
Neustrie  .  .  .  generale  placitum.'   Cf.  E.  H.  R.,  xxxi.  151. 

'  Preterea  duodecim  Ubras  in  firma  nostra  de  Argentomo  et  viginti  et  unum 
solidos  in  teloneo  eiusdem  viUe  et  sexaginta  solidos  et  decern  denarios  de  teloneo 
meo  de  Oximis,  que  dedenint  pater  meus  et  mater  mea  ecclesie  Sagiensi  ad  victum 
canonicorum  duorum,  quod  antiquitus  in  elemosinam  statutum  fuerat: '  MS. 
Alenfon  177,  f.  98;  MS.  Lat.  11058,  f.  8.  See  the  charter  in  full  in  Appendix  F, 
no.  11;  and  cf.  zn/ra,  Chapter  III.  These  items  are  duly  charged  in  the  roUs  of  1180 
and  1 184:  Stapleton,  i,  pp.  Ixxxviii,  xcvi,  cxxxii,  39,  50,  103;  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p. 
334- 

In  the  later  rolls  this  has  become  a  fixed  rent  of  15  pounds:  M.  A.  N.,  xvi, 
p.  xii;  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  334. 

See  the  charges  in  Stapleton,  i,  pp.  xcvi,  ci,  cviii,  cxxiii,  cxxxii,  39,  50,  57,  68, 
90,  103;  and  the  charters  in  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  11  ABCD,  who  shows  their  late 
origin  (pp.  Ixxxii  f.,  xcvi  f.).  Note,  however,  the  grant  of  the  tithe  of  the  markets 
of  the  Hiesmois  by  Robert  I  in  no.  14. 

See  above,  note  171;  Stapleton,  i,  pp.  xxiv,  c,  56.  Saint-Taurin,  later  a  de- 
pendency of  Fecamp,  received  from  Richard  I  the  tithe  of  the  vicomte  of  Evreux, 
but  this  passed  out  of  the  duke's  hands  and  does  not  appear  in  the  rolls:  '  Little 
Cartulary,"  ff.  57,  115V;  Bonnin,  Cartitlaire  de  Louviers,  i.  i;  Gallia  Christiana,  xi. 
instr.  138;  Martene  and  Durand,  Thesaurus  Anecdotorum,  i.  154.   The  tithe  of 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR  43 

the  Bessin.i^*  The  abbey  of  Cerisy  received  its  tithes,  as  granted 
by  Robert  I  and  confirmed  by  the  Conqueror  in  1042,  from  the 
vicomtes  of  the  Cotentin,  Coutances,  and  Gavray,  and  from  a 
number  of  the  ducal  forests."*  By  authority  of  William  I  the  nuns 
of  Saint-Amand  had  the  tithe  of  Barfleur,  of  Saint-James,  and  of 
the  modiatio  of  Rouen ;  those  of  La  Trinite  had  two-thirds  of  the 
tithe  of  the  prevote  of  Caen ;  the  bishop  of  Coutances  had  the  tithe 
of  the  toll  of  Cherbourg,  and  the  canons  of  Cherbourg  the  tithe  of 
the  ducal  mUis  in  Guernsey.'^'  Specific  grants  make  their  appear- 
ance in  the  same  reign:  besides  the  above  mentioned  grant  to 
Seez  William  gives,  before  1066,  to  the  nuns  of  Montivilliers  a 
himdred  shillings  in  the  prevote  of  Caen.^^^  none  of  these  cases 
does  the  original  grant  use  the  word  farm,  although  the  duke's 
revenues  at  Barfleur  and  in  the  vicomtes  of  the  Cotentin,  Cou- 
tances, and  Gavray  are  expressly  stated  to  be  in  money,  but  it  is 
altogether  likely  in  view  of  the  charter  to  Seez  that  the  vicomtes 
and  prevotes  were  farmed  in  the  Conqueror's  time.  This  was 
almost  certainly  true  in  the  case  of  Avranches,  from  whose  farm 
of  £80  twenty  were  regularly  credited  at  the  Exchequer  on  ac- 
count of  the  ducal  manor  of  Vains  and  its  appurtenances,  which 
had  been  granted  by  the  Conqueror  to  Saint-Etienne.  If  the 
farm  had  been  established  after  the  date  of  this  grant,  it  would 
have  been  stated  net,  instead  of  recording  to  no  purpose  the 
deduction  for  what  was  no  longer  a  source  of  ducal  income,  so 

Avranches,  granted  to  the  cathedral  by  Robert  I  (Pigeon,  Le  diocese  d' Avranches, 
ii.  667),  does  not  appear  in  the  rolls,  for  similar  reasons. 

178  Neustria  Pia,^.  2,2y,  Monasticon,\ii.  1087;  Delisle-Berger,  00.527;  Staple- 
ton,  i.  7,  40;  Vernier,  i.  40,  ii.  23. 

Neuslria  Pia,  p.  432;  Monasticm,  vii.  1073;  Farcy,  Abhayes  de  I'eveche  de 
Bayeux,  p.  78;  Appendix  C,  no.  3. 

Monaslicon,  vii.  iioi;  Stapleton,  i.  37,  40. 

Stapleton,  i,  pp.  c,  56,  bcxxiii,  30,  Ixxvii,  27.  The  tithe  of  Moulins  {ibid.,  pp. 
cxxxiv,  105)  also  went  back  to  a  grant  approved  by  William  before  1066:  Carlulaire 
de  S.-Pere  de  Ckartres,  i.  146. 

Gallia  Christiana,  id.  instr.  328;  Stapleton,  i.  pp.  c,  56.  The  Conqueror  also 
assigned  against  this  prevote  twelve  prebends  for  his  hospital  at  Caen,  and  similar 
charges  were  made  against  the  prevote  of  Bayeux:  Stapleton,  i,  pp.  Ixi,  ci;  cf. 
Henry  II's  charter  for  the  lepers  of  Bayeux,  DeUsle-Berger,  no.  689. 

The  duke's  oflScers  also  pay  tithes  and  fixed  charges  granted  by  his  barons  on 
tolls  which  have  subsequently  come  into  his  hands.  B.  £.  C,  x.  178, 196;  Stapleton, 
i,  pp.  hdv,  cxviii,  8,  14,  17,  82.  Cf.  Dialogus  de  Scaccario,  bk.  ii,  c.  10. 


44  NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 

that  we  must  infer  the  existence  of  this  farm  under  the  Con- 
queror.In  any  event,  in  order  to  make  grants  of  tithes  of  fixed 
amounts,  the  duke  must  have  been  in  the  habit  of  dealing  with 
these  local  areas  as  fiscal  wholes  and  not  as  mere  aggregates  of 
scattered  sources  of  income;  the  unit  was  the  vicomle  or  prevote, 
and  not  the  indi\'idual  domain.  He  can  tithe  the  revenue  from 
such  a  district  as  he  can  tithe  the  receipts  of  his  camera.  One 
other  point  of  interest  deserves  to  be  mentioned  in  connection 
with  these  entries  of  fixed  alms,  the  fact,  namely,  that  wherever 
the  matter  can  be  tested,  the  various  fixed  charges  are  entered 
under  each  account  in  chronological  order.^^'*  This  cannot  be 
mere  chance,  nor  is  it  likely  that  a  later  exchequer  ojficial  would 
have  sufiicient  historical  interest  to  rearrange  them  chronologi- 
cally; it  is  much  more  probable  that  when  each  grant  was  made  it 
was  entered,  probably  on  a  central  record  similar  to  the  later 
exactory  roll.  If  this  is  the  correct  explanation,  it  follows  that 
where  the  list  begins  with  the  grants  of  Richard  II  and  continues 
with  those  of  William,  the  entries  were  made  as  early  as  the 
Conqueror's  time.  There  would  be  nothing  surprising  in  the  exist- 
ence of  a  record  of  amoimts  due  and  allowances  to  be  made ;  such 
a  roll  is  the  natural  part  of  the  system  of  farms  and  fixed  ahns 
which  we  have  found  under  the  Conqueror,  if  not  of  the  state  of 
affairs  existing  under  Richard  11.^^ 

Whatever  weight  may  be  attached  to  these  inferences,  it  would 
seem  clear  that  in  the  matter  of  fiscal  organization  Normandy 
was  well  in  advance  of  neighboring  lands  such  as  the  coimty  of 
Anjou  or  the  royal  domain.^*^  The  Capetian  charters  of  the 

See  the  inquest  of  1171  in  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  345;  and  my  observations  in 
E.  H.  R.,  xxvi.  327.  For  the  grant  of  Vains  as  confirmed  by  Robert  11,  see  infra. 
Appendix  E,  no.  i. 

Stapleton,  i.  7,  30,  38,  39,  50,  56,  68,  70,  90,  97,  103,  11 1;  M.  A.  N.,  xvi.  109. 
E.  g.,  Stapleton,  i.  39,  56. 

Compare  the  early  development  of  a  fiscal  system  in  Flanders:  H.  Pirenne, 
Histoire  de  Belgique,  i.  109. 

A  comparative  study  of  fiscal  arrangements  in  the  eleventh  century  is  much 
needed.  The  charters  of  the  Angevin  counts  are  listed  by  L.  Halphen,  Le  comte 
d' Anjou  au  XI'  siecle  (Paris,  1906);  those  of  Robert  I  and  Henry  I  by  C.  Pfister, 
£ludes  sur  le  regne  de  Robert  le  Pieux  (Paris,  1885),  and  F.  Soehnee,  Catalogue  des 
actes  d'Henri  I"  (Paris,  1907).  The  charters  of  Philip  I  are  now  accessible  in  the 
admirable  edition  of  Maurice  Prou,  Recueil  des  actes  de  Philippe  I"  (Paris,  1908). 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR  45 

eleventh  century,  for  example,  indicate  fairly  primitive  economic 
conditions.  The  kings  are  Hberal  in  granting  lands  and  exemp- 
tions and  rights  of  exploitation,  but  fixed  grants  of  money  are  rare 
and  small  in  amovmt,  and  are  nearly  always  charged  against  an 
individual  domain  or  a  specific  source  of  revenue  rather  than,  as  in 
Normandy,  against  the  receipts  from  a  considerable  district.^** 
Whereas  the  Conqueror's  grants  give  evidence  of  a  considerable 
money  income,  the  ruder  economy,  or  Naturalwirthschaft,  of  the 
Capetian  kings  is  shown  by  the  prevalence,  well  into  the  twelfth 
century,  of  fixed  charges  which  are  paid  in  kind  —  the  tithe  of  the 
royal  cellars  and  granaries  at  Auvers  and  Poissy,i^'  two  setiers  of 
salt  in  the  granaries  of  Perche,  fourteen  muids  of  grain  in  the  mills 
of  Bourges,  or  twenty  muids  of  wine  from  the  vineyards  of  Vorges 
and  Joui.i^"  It  is  thoroughly  characteristic  of  the  condition  of 
eleventh-century  Normandy  that  the  dukes  should  be  sparing  in 
conferring  extensive  franchises  and  rights  of  exploitation,  while 
they  were  generous  in  permanent  grants  of  money  from  the 
income  which  their  own  officers  collected. 

In  local  government  the  distinctive  feature  of  the  Norman  sys- 
tem is  the  presence  of  a  set  of  ofi&cers  who  are  public  ofiicials, 
rather  than  mere  domanial  agents,  and  are  in  charge  of  adminis- 
trative districts  of  considerable  extent.  As  has  been  anticipated 
in  the  account  of  Norman  finance,  the  chief  local  ofiicer  of  the 

188  The  nearest  parallels  to  the  Norman  grants  among  the  grants  of  the  Capetian 
kings  are  the  gift  by  Robert  I  to  the  church  of  fitampes  of  ten  sous  of  '  census  de 
fisco  regali  Stampensi '  {H.  F.,  xi.  579;  Soehnee,  no.  73),  and  the  grant  by  Henry  I 
to  Saint-Magloire  of  the  tithe  of  the  port  of  Montreuil,  where  however  the  tithe  of 
the  money  had  already  been  granted  to  another  monastery  and  the  tithe  of  beer 
to  a  third:  Tardif,  Monuments  historiques,  no.  262;  Soehnee,  no.  33. 

189  Prou,  Philippe  I,  no.  63;  A.  Luchaire,  Louis  VI  (Paris,  1890),  no.  350. 
Carlulaire  de  Nogent-le-Rotrou,  no.  117;  Luchaire,  Louis  VI,  nos.  224,  621; 

cf.  nos.  557,  628,  630.  The  Norman  grants  of  wine  from  the  modiatio  of  Rouen  are 
different,  being  from  the  proceeds  of  a  toll  (levied  on  every  hundred  modii)  instead 
of  from  an  ordinary  storehouse  or  vineyard.  See  particularly  the  Conqueror's 
charter  (before  1055)  giving  Saint-Amand  '  decimam  mee  modiationis  de  Rotho- 
mago'  {vidimus  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure) ;  and  cf .  B.  E.  C,  xi.  424;  Beau- 
repaire,  La  Vicomte  de  I'Eau  de  Rouen  (Rouen,  1856),  p.  19.  For  an  early  Norman 
grant  in  produce,  later  paid  in  money,  see  the  gift  of  Richard  II  in  Le  Prevost, 
Eure,  ii.  413;  or  Stapleton,  i,  p.  cxxxvii. 


46 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


eleventh  century  was  the  vicomte,  and  the  principal  local  division 
the  vicomteP^  The  older  Prankish  areas,  pagus,^^^  centena,^^^  and 
vicaria,^^^  have  not  wholly  disappeared,  and  in  some  cases  the 
vicaria  may  have  become  the  vicecomitatus,^^^  but  the  vicomte  is  a 
far  more  important  personage  than  the  voyer  of  neighboring 
lands, and  the  territory  which  he  rules  is  considerably  larger. 
Whether  the  Norman  vicecomes  contributed  anything  more  than 
his  name  to  the  Anglo-Norman  sheriff,  is  a  question  to  which  no 
satisfactory  answer  can  be  given  until  we  know  more  of  the  func- 
tions of  both  officials. The  vicomte  is  a  military  leader,  com- 
manding the  duke's  troops  and  guarding  his  castles;  he  is 
charged  with  the  maintenance  of  order,  and  may  proclaim  the 
duke's  ban;  he  collects  the  ducal  revenues  for  his  district,  in- 
cluding the  customary  dues  from  the  demesne;  and  he  admin- 
isters local  justice  in  the  duke's  name,^"^  assisting  the  bishop  in  the 
enforcement  of  the  Truce  of  God     and  doubtless  exercising  the 

"1  The  prevalence  of  the  vicomte  as  the  local  division  appears  from  the  council 
of  Lillebonne,  c.  i ,  as  well  as  from  the  frequent  mention  of  vicomles  in  charters  from 
all  parts  of  Normandy. 

See  particularly  Le  Prevost,  Anciennes  divisions  terriloriales  de  la  Normandie, 
in  M.  A.  N.,  xi.  1-59,  reprinted  in  his  Eure,  iii.  485-544.  Cf.  Powicke,  Loss  of 
Normandy,  p.  61  ff. 

M.  A.  N.,  XXX.  668;  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  158;  cf.  Valin,  p.  97. 

Stapleton,  i,  p.  Ixxxi;  '  extra  vieriam  BeUsmi,'  charter  of  Robert  of  BeUeme, 
Archives  of  the  Ome,  H.  2150;  Denis,  Charles  de  S.-Julien  de  Tours,  no.  29. 

E.  Mayer,  Deutsche  und  franzdsische  Verfassungsgeschichte  (Leipzig,  1899),!. 
357.  Their  equivalence  is  implied  in  Ordericus,  ii.  470;  and  in  a  charter  of  the 
vicomte  of  Mantes  in  11 17  (Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  57). 

For  Anjou  see  Halphen,  Moyen  Age,  xv.  297-325. 

Cf.  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History,  i.  292,  note.  On  the  Anglo-Saxon  sheriff 
see  now  W.  A.  Morris,  E.  H.  R.,  xxxi.  20-40  (1916). 

DeUsle,  S.Sauveur,  pp.  2-3,  and  piece  34,  where  Neel  the  elder  holds  the 
castle  of  Le  Homme  '  quia  vicecomes  erat  eiusdem  patrie.' 

Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  34;  Bessin,  Concilia,  i.  63  (1073). 

DeUsle,  S.Sauveur,  no.  35;  Round,  Calendar,  nos.  1169,  11 70. 

See  the  account  in  Ordericus  of  the  vicomte  of  Orbec  (iii.  371)  and  particularly 
the  cases  at  Neaufle  '  in  curia  Roberti  Normannorum  comitis  .  .  .  coram  Guil- 
lehno  Crispino  Ulius  terre  vicecomite  '  (Le  Prevost,  Eure,  ii.  506)  and  '  in  curia  regis 
Anglorum  apud  castrum  Nielfam  '  (Bibliotheque  Nationale,  MS.  Baluze,  77,  f.  61). 
William  Crispin  is  also  mentioned  as  vicomte  of  the  Vexin  in  Migne,  Pairologia,  cl. 
737;  and  in  MS.  Tours  1381,  f.  2sv.  See  Poree,  Histoire  du  Bee,  i.  178 ff.;  J. 
Armitage  Robinson,  Gilbert  Crispin  (Cambridge,  1911),  p.  138. 

Council  of  Lillebonne,  c.  i. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


47 


jurisdiction  comprised  in  the  consuetiidines  vicecomitatus.^"^  He  is 
a  frequent  attendant  at  the  duke's  curia,  witnessing  charters  and 
taking  part  in  the  decision  of  cases,2°*  and  he  may  be  specially 
commissioned  to  hold  a  sworn  inquest  or  execute  the  decision 
of  the  court. The  ofi&ce  might  become  hereditary,  as  in  the 
Bessin  and  the  Cotentin,^"'  but  the  annual  farm  was  still  due  and 
the  duke's  control  seems  to  have  been  maintained.^"^  The  evi- 
dence is  not  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  define  the  relations  between 
the  vicecomitatus  and  the  prepositura  in  the  eleventh  century,  but 
it  seems  probable  that  they  were  "  from  the  first  convertible 
names  for  the  same  description  of  jurisdiction,  however  qualified 
in  extent,"  ia  somewhat  the  same  way  as  the  offices  of  prevot 
and  voyer  in  contemporary  Anjou.^'"  The  scattered  prepositi  who 
appear  in  the  charters  are  plainly  not  men  of  importance,  and, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  thelonearii  and  gravarii,'^^^  the  texts  do  not 
always  make  it  possible  to  distinguish  ducal  from  baronial  agents. 

Beyond  certain  names  of  foresters,^^^  we  get  no  light  on  the 
forest  administration,  but  it  is  evident  that  the  ducal  forests  are 

See  above,  notes  99,  108,  113. 

See  below,  note  280. 

Gallia  Christiana,  id.  instr.  65. 

Archaeological  Journal,  iii.  6;  Le  Pr6vost,  Eure,  iii.  184. 

Stapleton,  i,  p.  Ivii;  Lambert,  Les  anciens  vicomles  de  Bayeux,  in  Memoires  de 
la  Sociele  d'AgriciiUtire  de  Bayeux,  viii,  233  £f.;  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur,  ch.  i;  Valin, 
p.  97;  Chesnel,  Le  Cotenlin  et  I'Avranchin,  pp.  114-134. 

Ordericus  implies  the  removability  of  the  local  ofiBcials  when  he  says  of  the 
Conqueror,  in  1067:  '  Optimosque  indices  et  rectores  per  provincias  Neustrie  con- 
stituit '  (ii.  177). 

Stapleton,  i,  p.  bd;  cf.  B.  t.  C,  xi.  402. 
210  WThere  the  prevot  is  the  more  important  of  the  two  but  exercises  the  same 
functions  as  the  voyer:  Moyen  Age,  xv.  297  fl.  For  the  Capetian  prevot  see  Luchaire, 
Institutions  monarchiques,  i.  209-212,  219-235;  Fliche,  Le  regne  de  Philippe  I"', 
pp.  158-162. 

2"  Le  Pr6vost,  Eure,  i.  141,  460,  ii.  393;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  713;  Carlulaire 
de  la  Trinite  de  Rouen,  nos.  24,  27,  42,  44,  51;  Denis,  Charles  de  S.-Julien,  no.  29. 

Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  66;  Pommeraye,  Histoire  de  S.-Amand,  p.  79; 
Carlulaire  de  la  Trinite,  no.  16. 

Carlulaire  de  la  Trinite,  nos.  16,  73,  80;  Round,  no.  1175;  Revue  catholique  de 
Normandie,  vii.  432;  Stapleton,  i,  p.  clxxxi. 

Round,  nos.  1169,  1175;  Carlulaire  de  la  Trinite,  nos.  7,  28,  47,  49,  51,  64,  79; 
Le  Prdvost,  Eure,  1.  286,  562;  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  37;  M.  G.  H.,  Scriptores, 
viii.  401 ;  Revue  catholique  de  Normandie,  x.  47. 


48 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


already  extensive  and  important,  and  are  subject  to  the  special 
jurisdiction  which  goes  back  to  the  Prankish  forest  ban  and  will 
develop  into  the  forest  code  of  the  Anglo-Norman  kings.  We  hear 
of  pleas  of  the  forest,^^®  though  we  do  not  know  by  whom  they 
were  held ;  such  assaults  as  are  lawful  elsewhere  are  forbidden  in 
the  forests,^!^  and  for  offenses  against  the  forest  law  even  priests 
cannot  claim  their  exemption.^!* 

Of  mimicipal  institutions  before  1066  the  surviving  evidence  is 
exceedingly  scanty  and  imsatisfactory.  '  The  conspiracy  which  is 
called  a  commime  '  came  no  nearer  Normandy  than  Le  Mans,^'' 
and  the  small  beginnings  of  less  independent  forms  of  urban  life 
have  left  few  traces  indeed.  The  men  of  Rouen  traded  with  Lon- 
don as  early  as  the  reign  of  Ethelred  11,22°  ^nd  had  their  own 
wharf  at  Dowgate  imder  Edward  the  Confessor;  ^21  but  we  know 
nothing  of  their  form  of  government  before  the  days  of  Henry  II. 
Caen  is  an  important  ducal  town  under  Richard  II,  and  in  the 
following  half-century  burgi  spring  up  in  various  parts  of  the 
duchy ,222  foreshadowing  "  the  grand  scheme  of  burghal  coloniza- 
tion initiated  by  the  Conqueror's  tenants-in-chief  "  in  England.^^^ 

Waitz,  Deutsche  Verfassungsgeschichte,  ii.  2,  p.  316,  iv.  128  ff.;  Liebennann, 
Ueber  Pseudo-Cnitts  Constitutiones  de  Foresta,pp.  17, 19;  Thimme,  Forestis,  in  Archiv 
fur  Vrkundenforschung,  ii.  ii4fF.  (1908);  and  the  searching  criticism  of  C.  Petit- 
Dutaillis,  in  B.  E.  C,  Ixxvi.  97-152  (1915).  The  view  suggested  in  the  text  in  1909 
has  been  established  and  more  fully  developed  by  Petit-DutailUs,Lc5  origines  franco- 
normandes  de  la  '  foret '  dnglaise,  in  Melanges  Bemont  (Paris,  1913),  pp.  59-76; 
of.  his  translation  of  Stubbs,  ii.  757-849;  and  Prou  in  Journal  des  savants,  1915, 
pp.  241-253,  310-320,  345-354- 

Charters  of  Robert  and  William  for  Cerisy,  Neustria  Pia,  p.  431  f.  The 
coimt  of  Mortain  also  had  forest  courts:  B.  £.  C,  xi.  444. 

Consuetudines  et  iuslicie,  c.  7. 

CouncU  of  LUlebonne,  c.  8. 

Luchaire,  Les  communes  franqaises  (1911),  pp.  225,  228  f.,  252;  R.  Latouche, 
Histoire  du  comte  du  Maine  pendant  le  X'  et  le  XI'  siecle  (Paris,  1910),  pp.  88-95. 

Liebermarm,  Gesetze,  i.  232. 
^  E.  de  FrevTlle,  Memoire  sur  le  commerce  maritime  de  Rouen  (Rouen,  1857), 
i.  90,  ii.  12;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  109. 

^  See  in  general  Genestal,  La  tenure  en  hourgage  (Paris,  1900),  especially  p. 
233  ff.;  and  for  Caen,  the  excellent  study  of  H.  l^gras,  Lebourgage  de  Caen  (Paris, 
191 1),  p.  39.  Robert  I  is  said  to  have  granted  at  Caen  'imum  burgarium  ad 
pontum':  Appendix  B,  no.  10  (B).  Cf.  the  '  burgarii  Rotomagenses,'  ca.  1040, 
in  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  iSbis. 

Bateson,  £.  H.  R.,  xv.  74. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


49 


Already  Cormeilles  has  its  leges  with  such  definiteness  that  they 
can  be  granted  to  the  new  bourg  of  Auffai,^^^  and  the  laws  of 
Breteuil,  whatever  they  may  have  been  at  this  period,  were  stiffen- 
ing into  form  for  their  triumphal  progress  through  England  to  the 
Welsh  border  and  to  Ireland. The  privileged  area  of  a  league 
about  a  town  or  castle,  the  leiigata  or  banleuca,  of  which  we  find 
traces  in  Norman  England, is  also  foimd  in  early  Normandy. 
Robert  I  grants  this  privilege  at  Argences:  leuvam  iuxta  morem 
patriae  nostrae  propter  mercatum  ipsius  villaeP''  Other  early  ex- 
amples are  at  Cambremer,'^^  Conde,^^^  Conches,^^"  and  Lisieux.^^^ 
The  league  of  Brionne  is  even  said  to  have  been  measured  out  at 
Tunbridge  with  the  same  rope.^'^ 

The  organization  of  the  ducal  household  can  be  sketched  only 
in  provisional  fashion  imtil  the  whole  body  of  contemporary 
charters  has  been  collected  and  their  witnesses  critically  sifted. 
In  general  the  history  of  the  Norman  curia  is  parallel  to  that  of 
the  contemporary  Capetian  estabHshment,  in  which  the  great 
oflScers  emerge  during  the  reign  of  Henry  I  and  become  firmly 
placed  under  Philip  I.^^'  Barely  known  under  Richard  II  and 

Ordericus,  iii.  42. 

Mary  Bateson,  The  Laws  of  Breteuil,  in  E.  H.  R.,  xv-xvi.  Her  reconstruction 
of  the  laws  has  been  criticized  by  Hemmeon,  Burgage  Tenure  in  M ediaeval  England 
{Harvard  Historical  Studies,  xx),  pp.  166-172. 

Domesday,  i.  sb-g  (Kent),  303b  (York);  charter  for  Battle  Abbey,  new 
Rymer,  i.  i,  p.  4;  cf.  Maitland,  Domesday  Book  and  Beyond,  p.  281 ;  Pollock  and 
Maitland,  i.  583;  C.  Gross,  Gild  Merchant,  ii.  30;  Ramsey  Chronicle,  pp.  214,  224. 

Appendix  B,  no.  10. 

Livre  noir,  no.  21  (1036);  cf.  nos.  39,  43,  44. 

Neustria  Pia,  p.  425.  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  128. 

21  Ibid.,  p.  203;  Neustria  Pia,  p.  585.  For  later  examples  see  Delisle,  ^.tude  sur 
I' agriculture,  p.  40  f.;  Round,  no.  124;  Legras,  Caen,  p.  38. 

^  Robert  of  Torigni  in  William  of  Jumieges,  ed.  Marx,  p.  289.  The  leuca  Brionie 
is  mentioned  in  the  Conqueror's  charter  for  Jumieges  (Neustria  Pia,  p.  324;  Vernier, 
i.  99)  and  in  a  grant  to  Bee  (Poree,  Histoire  du  Bee,  i.  647). 

''^  See  Luchaire,  Institutions  monarchiques ,  i.  160  ff.;  and  particularly  the  care- 
ful lists  in  Prou,  Actes  de  Philippe  I,  pp.  cxxx^'i-cU;  and  the  discussion  in  A.  Fliche, 
Philippe  I",  pp.  1 1 2-1 20.  The  preeminence  of  the  four  chief  officers  is  not  so 
clear  in  Normandy,  but  L.  W.  Vernon  Harcourt,  His  Grace  the  Steward  (London, 
1907),  p.  6,  tends  to  exaggerate  the  difiference  between  the  two  courts.  Valin, 
pp.  141-151,  does  not  treat  this  subject  in  any  detail.  Round,  The  King's  Serjeants 
(London,  1911),  is  concerned  almost  wholly  with  the  later  period. 


50 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


Robert  I,^'^  the  Drincipal  officers  of  the  Norman  household  are 
already  established  in  the  early  part  of  the  Conqueror's  reign,  but 
they  are  not  yet  clearly  distinguished  from  lesser  dignitaries  of  the 
same  title,^'*  and  further  study  is  needed  to  deterrmne  their  suc- 
cession, functions,  and  relative  importance.  Ralph  of  Tancar- 
ville  the  chamberlain, Gerald  the  seneschal,^"  and  Hugh  of  Ixry 
the  butler    are  familiar  figures  at  William's  court;  the  constable, 

'  Rotselinus  camberarius,'  in  original  of  Richard  11  for  Saint-Ouen,  before 
1024  (Musee  des  archives  departemenlales,  no.  21) ;  '  Roztelinus  cubioilarius,'  Lot,  5.- 
Wandrille,  no.  12;  '  Odo  constabularius  '  of  Richard  II,  in  charter  for  Jumieges  in 
Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure  (Vernier,  i.  40) ;  '  Turoldus  comitisse  Gunnoris 
camerarius,'  Carltdaire  de  la  Trinite,  no.  4.  For  the  rare  indications  of  household 
ofl&cers  under  Robert  I,  see  infra,  Appendix  C.  The  vicomles  are  more  prominent 
than  the  household  officers  in  the  charters  of  these  dukes,  e.  g.,  Le  Prevost,  Eure, 
i.  285. 

Cf.  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History,  i.  373,  note  i;  and  Schubert's  study  of  the 
imperial  household,  Mitteilungen  des  Instituts,  xxxiv.  427-501  (1913). 

Round,  nos.  73,  196,  711,  1165-1167;  Le  Prevost,  Ettre,  iii.  468;  Denis, 
Charles  de  S.-Jtdien,  no.  24;  Litre  noir  de  Bayeux,  nos.  1,5;  Cartulaire  de  la  Trinite, 
nos.  7,  38,  39;  Gallia  Christiana,  id.  instr.  60  f.,  68  f.,  72,  201,  328;  A.  DeviUe, 
Essai  historiqiie  sur  S .-Georges-de-Bocherville  (Rouen,  1827),  p.  62  ('  Radulfus 
autem  mens  magister  auleque  et  camere  mee  princeps ') ;  cf .  Lot,  S.-Wandrille, 
no.  14.  He  appears  as  late  as  1079  according  to  the  Cartularj'  of  Jumieges,  no.  22, 
f.  22(cf.  Vernier,  i.  108),  and  the  office  passed  to  his  descendants. 

For  other  chamberlains  see  Davis,  Regesla,  pp.  xxiv-xx\d;  and  the  mention  of 
Corbuzzo  {Cartulaire  de  la  Trinite,  no.  75);  Robert  (Roimd,  no.  87;  Gallia  Chris- 
tiana, id.  instr.  71);  and  WUliam  {ibid.,  67,  71). 

^'  For  the  various  seneschals  of  this  period  see  Vernon  Harcourt,  pp.  7-21; 
Davis,  p.  xxiiif.;  neither  of  whom  mentions  Robert  the  seneschal,  witness  to  the 
foundation  charter  of  Sigy  before  1047  (original  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure, 
fonds  Saint-Ouen;  d'Achery,  Spicilegium,  iii.  400;  Pommeraye,  Hisloire  de  S.- 
Ouen,  p.  460).  Examples  of  two  holders  of  the  title  in  the  same  document  are 
Osbem  and  Ansfred  in  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  13;  William  Fitz  Osbem  and  Gerald 
in  cartulary  of  Saint-Ouen  (286/i),  no.  338. 

Before  1066:  Round,  nos.  73,  81,  1167;  charter  for  Jumieges,  Vernier,  no.  25; 
Pommeraye,  S.-Amand,  pp.  77,  79;  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  i.  149,  562;  La  Roque,  ui. 
26;  Carltdaire  de  la  Trinite,  nos.  38,  39.  For  later  instances,  see  Da\"is,  p.  xxvii; 
Roimd,  nos.  91,  93,  421;  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  71  f.,  329;  Sauvage,  Troarn, 
p.  456;  Collection  Moreau,  xxx.  190V  (1071);  Cartulaire  de  la  Trinite,  no.  47; 
Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  G.  8739  (1075,  issued  by  the  Queen  during  Wil- 
liam's absence  in  England).  Roger  of  I\Ty  also  was  butler:  Da\-is,  /.  c.  Before 
1066  we  likewise  ffiid  '  Giraldus  pincema  '  in  a  charter  of  Fecamp  (C^oUection 
Moreau,  xxii.  109V);  '  Girardus  comitis  botellarius  '  (Preaux  cartulary,  no.  438); 
'  Gerardus  pincemarum  magister  comitis  Willelmi '  {Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr. 
12;  Cartulaire  de  S.-Pere  de  Charlres,  i.  176). 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


51 


though  mentioned  under  Robert  I,  is  apparently  of  less  impor- 
tance,^^* and  the  marshal  is  just  traceable. Of  lesser  men  of  the 
palace  the  hosliarius  is  noteworthy. The  mention  of  the  cham- 
berlain in  fiscal  matters  ^''^  indicates  at  least  one  of  his  functions; 
whether  the  seneschalship  of  Osbem  and  his  son  William  had  any 
connection  with  their  titles  of  procurator  principalis  domus,  comes 
palatii,  and  magister  militum,  is  an  open  question. Whatever 
the  duties  of  the  household  officers,  they  do  not  seem  to  have  had 
any  fixed  place  or  order  in  the  ducal  charters,  where  they  appear, 
if  at  all,  scattered  among  the  other  witnesses  who  sign  these  none 
too  regular  documents.^^* 

The  clerical  element  in  the  household  naturally  centered  in  the 
duke's  chapel,  which  was  the  point  of  departure  for  the  develop- 
ment of  the  secretarial  and  fiscal  sides  of  the  central  administra- 
tion; but  while  we  have  the  names  of  several  of  William's  early 
chaplains,^''^  some  of  whom  became  bishops  in  Normandy  or  in 

Under  Robert  I  the  office  was  held  by  Turold,  under  William  by  Hugh  de 
Montfort:  infra,  ■p.  275;  Davis,  p.  xxvi. 

2'"'  Davis,  p.  xx\'i  f.;  Round,  in  Victoria  History  of  Hampshire,  i.  430.  Ilbert 
the  Marshal  {Cartidaire  de  la  Triniie,  no.  2)  may  also  have  been  a  ducal  officer. 

'Rotgerius  hostiarius'  before  1024  {Miisee  des  archives  departementales,  no.  21); 
'  Turoldus  hostiarius  '  in  1053  (Cartulaire  de  la  Triniie,  no.  37);  '  Theodericus  hos- 
tiarius' before  1060  (Pigeon,  Le  diocese  d'Avranches,  ii.  668) ;  '  Rogerius  hostiarius  ' 
(Delisle,  S.-Saiiveur,  no.  41). 
^  Supra,  note  172. 

2"  Vernon  Harcourt,  pp.  11-15,  who,  however,  argues  vainly  against  William's 
having  been  seneschal.  See  below,  note  289.  To  say,  as  this  author  says  (p.  9), 
that  Osbem  "  was  a  mere  household  officer,  procurator  and  dapifer,  not  an  officer 
of  state,"  is  to  misunderstand  the  nature  of  the  development. 

See  however  a  charter  of  1066  in  Cartulaire  de  la  Triniie,  no.  39,  attested  by 
William  Fitz  Osbem,  Gerald  the  seneschal,  Ralph  the  chamberlain,  and  Hugh  the 
butler.  Cf.  no.  38;  Pommeraye,  S.-Amand,  p.  82;  and  Mabillon,  Annates,  v.  593 
(1070).  See  also  Round,  no.  1167,  printed  in  Bertrand  de  Broussillon,  La  maison 
de  Laval  (Paris,  1895),  i.  35,  a  charter  of  1055  which  is  somewhat  suspicious. 

^  Theobald,  Baldwin  (bishop  of  fivreux  in  1066),  and  Herfast  (chancellor  after 
1068)  witness  as  chaplains  an  early  charter  in  Round,  Calendar,  no.  1165;  Delisle, 
S.-Sauveur,  no.  19.  Other  chaplains  before  1066  are  Robert  {Gallia  Christiana,  xi. 
instr.  327);  Stephen  (at  Mont-Saint-Michel,  in  1054,  cartulary  of  Mont-Saint- 
Michel,  f.  65;'  cf.  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  159);  Gilbert  Maminot,  later  bishop 
of  Lisieux  (Ordericus,  ii.  122);  and  the  Bayeux  group  mentioned  in  the  following 
note.  Isembert  had  been  chaplain  of  Robert  I  before  he  became  abbot  of  La 
Trinite:  William  of  Jumieges,  ed.  Marx,  p.  108.  For  William's  later  years  see 
Davis,  Regesta,  pp.  xviii-xxi;  and  the  long  list  in  no.  22  of  his  calendar  (1068). 


52 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


England,  very  little  is  known  of  their  secular  duties.  Certain 
churches  seem  to  have  been  constituted  chapelries  for  the  chap- 
lains' support,2«  so  that  the  office  had  some  degree  of  continuity, 
and  the  ducal  clerks  of  these  days  show  something  of  the  skill  in 
acquiring  desirable  houses  and  lands  which  is  characteristic  of 
their  successors  in  the  twelfth  century .^''^  If  the  Norman  dukes 
had  a  chancery,  it  was  doubtless  closely  connected  with  the 
chapel,  so  that  the  absence,  save  for  two  charters  of  Richard  11,^^* 
of  any  mention  of  a  chancellor  before  1066  does  not  preclude  the 
existence  of  some  sort  of  a  chancery.  Chancery  and  chapel  were 
not  completely  differentiated  in  Prankish  days,^*^  and  at  the  court 
of  Philip  I  the  chancellor  sometimes  attested  simply  as  chap- 
Iain  ;  while  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  Conqueror's  first 
chancellor  in  England,  Herfast,  had  long  been  his  chaplain  in 

'  Temporibus  Ricardi  comitis  Normarmie  et  Rotberti  eius  filii  et  Willelmi  filii 
predicti  Rotberti  fuit  quidam  eorum  capellanus  Baiocis  Emaldus  nomine,  potens 
in  prediis  et  domibus  infra  civatatem  et  extra  ci\dtatem  que  emerat  sue  auro  atque 
suo  argento.  Quo  mortuo  tempore  Willelmi  Normaimorum  ducis  Stephanus  nepos 
predicti  Emaldi  iure  hereditario  successit  in  hereditatem  sui  avunculi  dono  Willelmi 
Normannorum  ducis.'  After  Stephen's  death  and  a  suit  in  the  king's  court  the 
king  '  accepit  in  suum  dominium  possessionem  Stephani  et  dedit  eam  regine,  et 
regina  dedit  michi  concessu  regis  domos  et  duodecim  acras  terre  que  iam  predixi  et 
ortos  et  omnia  que  habuerat  Stephanus  de  suo  alodio,  nam  aUas  res  eiusdem  Stephani 
que  pertinebant  ad  ecclesiam  Sancti  lohannis  que  erat  capeUa  regis  dederat  iam  rex 
Thome  suo  clerico  nondum  archiepiscopo.'  Notice  of  Rainald  the  chaplain,  MS. 
Lat.  n.  a.  1243,  f.  80;  MS.  Fr.  4899,  p.  292;  Drinted  in  Archaeologia,  xx\Ti.  26.  This 
capellaria  was  later  held  by  Samson  {Livre  noir,  no.  4),  doubtless  the  royal  chaplain 
of  that  name  who  became  bishop  of  Worcester  in  1096.  Both  Samson  and  his 
brother  Thomas  were  canons  and  treasurers  of  Bayeux.  For  other  possessions  of 
Rainald  see  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  69,  328  f.;  for  his  later  history,  Da\-is,  p.  xx, 
and  attestations  in  Collection  Moreau,  xxix.  89. 

Cf.  Rovmd,  Bernard  the  King's  Scribe,  E.  H.  R.,  xiv.  417-430. 

^  '  Hugo  cancellarius  scripsit  et  subscripsit ':  charter  for  Fecamp,  Musee  de  la 
Benedictine,  no.  2  ter;  Neustria  Pia,  p.  215;  Appendix  B,  no.  5.  '  Odo  cancellarius 
scripsit  et  subscripsit ':  charter  for  Dudo  of  Saint-Quentin,  Gallia  Christiana,  xi. 
instr.  284;  Nouveau  traile  de  diplomatique,  iv.  225,  v.  760.  The  charter  of  loii  for 
Saint-Ouen  (Pommeraye,  Histoire  de  S.-Ouen,  p.  422)  which  contains  the  words 
'  Dudo  capellanus  composui  et  scripsi '  is  an  evident  forgery;  but  an  authentic 
charter  of  1006  for  Fecamp  (Musee,  no.  i;  Appendix  B,  no.  2)  has  '  ego  Wide 
notarius  iussu  domni  Richardi  illustrissimi  ducis  .  .  .  hoc  testamentum  scripsi.' 

2«  On  the  whole  subject  of  the  Frankish  chapel  see  Liiders,  Capella,  in  Archiv 
fur  Urkundenforschung,  ii.  i-ioo;  Bresslau,  Urkundenlehre?,  i.  406  ff. 

»5«  Prou,  Actes  de  Philippe  I,  p.  Iv. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


S3 


Normandy where  he  is  called  chaplain  as  late  as  1069,  appar- 
ently after  his  entrance  upon  the  English  chancellorship. 
the  whole,  however,  under  William  as  under  his  father,  a  chancery 
seems  to  have  been  lacking  in  fact  as  well  as  in  name  before  1066. 
Few  of  his  charters  bear  a  chaplain's  attestation,  and  only  one 
mentions  its  author,  a  certain  '  Frater  Robertus  '  who  seems  to 
have  been  a  monk  of  Saint-WandriUe.^"*  Something  remains  to  be 
done  in  the  palaeographical  study  of  the  few  extant  originals,  but 
in  general  there  is  no  regularity  of  tj'pe,  and  local  authorship  is 
indicated  by  the  style  of  the  diike's  documents  and  by  the  fre- 
quency with  which  he  is  content  to  affix  his  signature  to  the  char- 
ters of  others.-^''  There  is  no  trace  or  mention  of  a  ducal  seal.^^* 
After  the  Conquest,  the  existence  of  a  chancery  is  well  established, 
and  it  seems  plain  that  the  EngUsh  tradition,  such  as  it  was,"^ 

2"  Davis,  p.  xvi. 

Round,  no.  77,  dated  1069,  whereas,  if  we  accept  the  authenticity  of  no.  22 
in  Davis,  he  is  chancellor  in  1068.  So  Osmund,  chaplain  in  1074  (Da\'is,  no.  76), 
may  have  borne  the  title  of  chancellor  in  the  preceding  year  {ibid.,  no.  70).  Davis, 
p.  xvu,  seems  to  me  too  rigid  in  denying  the  impossibility  of  such  an  alternation  of 
title,  which  meets  us  two  generations  later  under  Geoffrey  Plantagenet  {infra, 
Chapter  IV,  p.  137). 

'  Ego  frater  Rodbertus  scripsi  et  subscripsi ' :  original  in  MS.  Lat.  16738,  no.  4; 
Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  20  (1037-1055).  Cf.  '  Robertus  scriptor '  in  a  charter  for 
Saint-Amand  (Pommeraye,  Histoire  de  S.-Amand,  p.  78);  '  Rodbertus  clericus  '  in 
an  early  charter  for  Jumieges  (Vernier,  no.  20);  'Godbertus  clericus'  in  Le  Prevost, 
Ewe,  i.  562  (1063). 

For  a  convincing  illustration,  see  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  nos.  30  and  31  (1051), 
and  the  editor's  notes.  Another  e.xample,  also  an  original,  is  in  M.  A .  N.,  xxx.  670 
(Round,  no.  1109).  On  the  absence  of  clear  evidence  for  a  Norman  chancery  be- 
fore the  Conquest,  see  Stevenson,  in  E.  H.  R..  xi.  733,  note  5;  and  compare  the 
interesting  observations  of  Pirenne  on  the  documents  of  the  counts  of  Flanders, 
Melanges  Julien  Havel,  pp.  733-748. 

266  -pjjg  mention  of  William's  seal  in  the  notice  of  the  foundation  of  Cherbourg 
{Gallia  Chrisliana,  xi.  instr.  229;  Revue  catholiqtie,  x.  47)  must  be  taken  with  cau- 
tion. In  any  case  the  date  is  long  after  1035,  the  year  indicated  by  Stevenson, 
E.  H.  R.,  xxvii.  4,  note,  who  remarks  the  absence  of  any  Norman  seals  anterior  to 
1066  save  the  one  of  Richard  II  described  by  the  authors  of  the  Nouveau  traiti, 
iv.  226. 

^*  For  the  external  history  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  chancery,  see  Davis,  pp.  xi- 
xv;  for  the  conditions  under  which  documents  were  drawn  up,  Hubert  Hall, 
Studies  in  English  Official  Historical  Documents,  p.  163  ff.  See  also  Stevenson,  in 
E.  H.  R.,  xi.  731-744.  The  subject  is  far  from  being  exhausted;  one  of  the  necessarj' 
topics  of  investigation  is  the  private  charters  of  the  period,  studied  region  by  region 
and  monastery  by  monastery. 


54 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


strongly  asserted  itself.  There  is  no  reason  for  assuming  more 
than  one  such  bureau  for  William's  dominions,  indeed  the  hy- 
pothesis of  a  '  Norman  chancery ' nms  counter  to  all  that  we 
know  of  the  essentially  personal  relation  of  king  and  chancellor 
at  this  time  and  for  long  thereafter;  and  writs  fly  in  either  direc- 
tion across  the  Channel.^^^  A  regular  succession  of  chancellors  can 
now  be  traced,^*^  but  their  documents  have  yet  to  be  subjected  to 
the  close  diplomatic  examination  which  alone  can  determine  the 
influence  of  Anglo-Saxon  precedents,  the  survival  of  local  author- 
ship, and  the  actual  processes  of  the  chancery.  Until  the  more 
abundant  English  evidence  has  been  more  adequately  utilized, 
Norman  investigation  must  perforce  wait. 

Of  the  curia  in  the  wider  sense  before  1066  it  is  likewise  impos-" 
sible  to  speak  with  the  definiteness  which  it  deserves  as  an  ante- 
cedent of  the  English  curia  regis.  A  comparison  of  the  names  of 
the  witnesses  to  William's  charters  does  not  show  any  great  degree 
of  fixity  in  his  entourage.  The  bishops,  when  present,  sign  after 
the  members  of  the  ducal  family.  Then  comes  a  small  group  of 
counts  and  men  of  high  rank  —  the  coimts  of  Evreux  and  Mor- 
tain,  Roger  of  Beaumont,  Roger  of  Montgomery,  William  Fitz 
Osbem  —  followed  by  household  ofiicers,  vicomtes,  and  others.^^" 
These  are  the  elements  which  constitute  the  curia,  but  their  func- 
tion is  attestation  rather  than  assent,  and,  except  for  the  few 
cases  where  the  charter  is  expressly  declared  to  be  issued  in  such  a 
gathering,^^!  it  is  impossible  to  say  when  the  primates  or  proceres 

2"  Davis  uses  this  ill-advised  phrase,  p.  xviii  f.  Note  the  presence  of  the  king's 
chancellor  Osmund  at  Bonneville  in  Davis,  no.  70,  and,  still  on  the  Continent,  in 
nos.  76  and  114. 

2^  '  Rex  WiUelmus  .  .  .  mandavit  de  Normannia  in  Angliam  episcopo  Con- 
stantiarum  et  R.  de  OiUi  per  breves  suos  ':  Round,  Feudal  Englafid,  p.  157;  cf. 
Textus  Roffensis,  ed.  Heame,  p.  145.  For  an  example  of  such  a  writ  see  Davis,  no. 
98.  A  letter  from  William  in  England  to  Matilda  in  Normandy  is  assumed  in 
DeUsle,  S.-Sauveur,  no.  35  (Rovmd,  no.  11 70),  and  one  is  printed  in  Revue  cathoUque, 
X.  348  (Round,  no.  1175;  Davis,  no.  161).  The  writ  of  summons  is  mentioned  in 
Normandy,  ca.  1077:  'per  me  vel  per  brevem  meum  abbatem  summoneam ' 
{Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  66;  Davis,  no.  105). 
Davis,  pp.  xvi-xviii. 

On  the  curia  under  Robert  I  see  the  analysis  of  the  charters  in  Appendix  C. 
On  resemblances  to  the  Prankish  conventus,  Tardif,  Etude  sur  les  sources,  i.  6. 

Hariulf,  ed.  Lot,  p.  185;  Martene  and  Durand,  Thesaurus,  i.  252;  Ordericus, 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


55 


have  met  as  an  assembly.  Beyond  the  old  custom  of  holding  an 
assembly  at  Fecamp  at  Eastertide,^^^  our  knowledge  of  the  duke's 
itinerary  is  too  fragmentary  to  show  any  such  regularity  in  the 
court's  meetings  as  we  find  in  England  after  the  Conquest. The 
curia  was  brought  together  for  purposes  of  counsel  on  matters 
which  ranged  from  a  transfer  of  rehcs  to  the  invasion  of  Eng- 
land,and  for  judicial  business.  As  a  judicial  body  the  charters 
reveal  its  activity  chiefly  in  cases  concerning  a  monastery's  title 
to  land  —  for  the  duke's  protection  naturally  carried  with  it 
access  to  his  court  —  but  it  plainly  has  wider  functions  growing 
out  of  the  judicial  supremacy  of  the  duke.  It  may  try  barons  for 
high  crimes.^^^  Disputes  respecting  the  limits  of  ecclesiastical 
and  baronial  jurisdiction  must  be  brought  before  it,^^^  and  it  is  the 

ii.  40.  Cf.  what  Maitland  has  to  say  of  the  '  consent '  of  the  witan,  Domesday  Book 
and  Beyond,  pp.  247-252. 

262  William  of  Jumieges,  ed.  Marx,  p.  340;  hot,  Fideles  on  vassaux?,  p.  262.  We 
find  an  Easter  court  at  Fecamp  in  1032  (Ordericus,  iii.  223) ;  1028  or  1034  (Appendix 
B,  no.  7);  ca.  1056  (Round,  no.  nog);  1066  (Le  Prevost,  Eure,  i.  149);  1067 
(Duchesne,  Scriptores,  p.  211);  1075  (Ordericus,  ii.  303);  1083  (MS.  Rouen  1193, 
f.  30V).  No  place  is  mentioned  in  Cartidaire  de  la  Trinile  de  Rouen,  no.  82,  issued  at 
the  Easter  court  of  1080.  The  great  privileges  of  Richard  II  for  the  Norman  mon- 
asteries were  granted  at  a  curia  held  at  Fecamp  in  August  {Neustria  Pia,  pp.  215, 
398;  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  i.  285;  Appendix  B,  no.  5),  and  Robert  I  held  a  curia  there 
in  January,  1035  {Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  327). 

The  scanty  Ust  in  Coville,  Les  Etats  de  Normandie  (Paris,  1894),  p.  250  f.,  is 
based  solely  on  the  chroniclers.  WiUiam's  itinerary  after  1066  (Davis,  p.  xxi  f.) 
shows  how  httle  Norman  evidence  there  is  for  VaUn's  assertion  (p.  103)  that  the 
three  assembUes  were  held  regularly  each  year.  Now  and  then  there  is  evidence 
of  the  duke's  presence  at  Rouen  at  or  near  Christmas:  1032  (Migne,  Patrologia, 
cLxii.  1165  f .) ;  1054  (Round,  no.  710) ;  1070  (?  Davis,  no.  56) ;  1074  (ziwf.,  no.  75). 
Liebermann,  The  National  Assembly  (Halle,  1913),  p.  82,  considers  the  three  assem- 
blies in  England  as  '  a  French  novelty  '  of  the  Conqueror.  See,  however,  L.  M. 
Larson,  The  King's  Household  (Madison,  1904),  p.  200  f. 

Acta  Sanctorum,  February,  i.  193  (Richard  I). 

Freeman,  Norman  Conquest,  iii.  (1875)  290  fl. 

'  Si  per  Ulam  calumniam  damnum  aliquod  ipsi  monachi  habuerint,  duas 
reclamationes  in  mea  corte  vel  curia  faciant: '  Robert  I  for  Fecamp,  Appendix  B, 
no.  7.  See  DeUsle,  S.-Sauveur,  nos.  35,  36,  42;  Hariulf,  ed.  Lot,  p.  224;  Cartulaire 
de  la  Triniie,  no.  82;  Ordericus,  ii.  310;  Deville,  Analyse,  p.  20;  Round,  Calendar, 
nos.  78,  116,  165,  711,  712,  1114,  1170-1172,  1190,  1212.  On  certain  of  these  cases 
cf.  Davis,  p.  xxix. 

Ordericus,  ii.  433.  Cf.  the  case  of  the  abbot  of  Saint-fivroul,  ibid.,  ii.  81;  and 
Round,  no.  713. 

Council  of  LiUebonne,  end. 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


obvious  place  for  the  settlement  of  other  difficulties  between  the 
greater  tenants,  so  that  it  may  even  be  agreed  that  a  case  shall  be 
respited  until  it  can  come  before  the  duke.^^^  The  curia  is  a  place 
of  record  for  agreementSj^^"  and  may  itself  order  a  sworn  record  to 
be  made  and  attested. It  may  send  officers  to  partition  land.^^ 
Evidence  is  secured  by  oath,^"  ordealj^^*  and  the  wager  of  bat- 
tle,"* and  it  is  altogether  probable  that  the  sworn  inquest  was 
employed. Where  the  account  is  at  all  explicit,  we  usually  find 
certain  members  rendering  the  decision  of  the  court,  sometimes 
merely  as  Urteilfinder  after  the  case  has  been  heard  before  the 
whole  curia,'"''  sometimes  as  a  separate  body  before  which  the 
proceedings  are  conducted."*  This  does  not  necessarily  involve 
any  stability  of  organization  or  specialization  of  function,  but 
there  are  indications  that  more  of  a  beginning  had  been  made  in 
this  direction  in  Normandy  than,  for  example,  in  the  neighboring 
coimty  of  Anjou."^  Among  the  men  who  act  as  judges  we  reg- 
ularly find  one  or  more  bishops  and  a  vicomte,^^"  members  of  the 

'  Est  in  respectu  donee  coram  rege,'  1070-1081,  supra,  p.  22.  The  passage  is 
somewhat  obscure  (cf.  Round,  Calendar,  no.  714),  but  the  meaning  of  coram  rege  is 
plain. 

Round,  nos.  713, 1171  (of  1063,  printed  in  Bertrandde  Broussillon,  La  maison 
de  Laval,  i.  38),  and  the  charter  cited  in  the  preceding  note.  Cf.  the  following,  from 
a  charter  of  William  as  duke:  '  Me  petierunt  canonici  precepique  ut  coram  Geraldo 
dapifero  meo  firmaretur  eorum  conventio,  quod  factum  est.'  A.  DeviUe,  Essai 
hislorique  sur  S .-Georges-de-Bocherville,  p.  71. 

Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  65  (Davis,  no.  117). 

Valin,  pieces,  no.  i  (=  Archaeological  Journal,  iii.  6),  under  Richard  II;  Le 
Prevost,  Eure,  iii.  184  (1066). 

2"3  Livre  noir,  no.  21;  M.  A.  N.,  xv.  196,  xxx.  681. 

Bertrand  de  BroussUlon,  La  maison  de  Laval,  i.  39  (Round,  no.  117  2);  Or- 
dericus,  ii.  433;  Memoires  de  la  Sociele  d' Agriculture  de  Bayeux  (1845),  iii-  125; 
Archaeologia,  xxvii.  26;  Lot.  S.-Wandrille,  no.  39. 

Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  37  (Round,  no.  165). 

Brunner,  Schwurgerichte,  p.  270;  Pollock  and  Maitland,  i.  143;  Valin,  p.  200. 
The  existence  of  the  sworn  inquest  has  mainly  to  be  inferred  from  its  appearance  in 
England  shortly  after  the  Conquest  and  in  Normandy  in  the  twelfth  century.  See 
infra.  Chapter  VI. 

27'  Round,  no.  1 190.  On  this  practice  see  G.  B.  Adams,  in  Columbia  Law  Review, 
April,  1913,  note  30. 

DeUsle,  S.-Sauveur,  nos.  36,  42;  Round,  no.  11 14;  Pigeon,  Le  diocese  d'Av- 
ranckes,  ii.  673. 

2"  For  Anjou  see  Halphen,  in  Revue  historique,  lxx\ii.  282. 

2*"  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur,  nos.  13,  35,  36,  42;  Round,  no.  1190.  The  bishops  are 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


57 


two  classes  which  had  most  occasion  to  become  acquainted  with 
the  law,  and  while  we  do  not  yet  hear  of  a  body  of  justices  and  a 
chief  justiciar,  it  is  not  impossible  that  something  of  the  sort  may 
have  existed.  At  the  very  beginning  of  Wilham's  reign  the  bishop 
of  Bayeux  makes  complaint  before  the  archbishop  of  Rouen, 
Count  Odo  of  Brittany,  Neal  the  vicomte,  aliique  seniores  iusticiam 
regni  obtinentes in  a  case  between  1055  1066  the  judges  are 
Robert,  coimt  of  Mortain,  the  archbishop,  the  bishops  of  Evreux 
and  Lisieux,  and  the  abbot  of  Fecamp;  in  three  other  cases 
the  archbishop  of  Rouen  and  Roger  of  Beaumont  appear  among 
the  judges.^^^  In  1077  Lanfranc,  who  had  attended  the  dedication 
of  Saint-Etienne  a  fortnight  earlier,  heard  a  plea  between  Osbem 
Giffard  and  Abbot  William,^^^  doubtless  by  special  order  of  the 
duke.  Bishop  Geoffrey  of  Coutances,  described  by  his  biographer 
as  immersed  in  the  business  of  the  king  and  the  curia,^^^  is  found 
in  three  of  the  small  number  of  charters  where  the  names  of  the 
judges  are  given,^^*  and  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  he  served  a 
Norman  apprenticeship  for  his  work  as  judge  and  Domesday 
commissioner  in  England. It  is  clear  that,  contrary  to  Free- 
man's view  of  the  exclusion  of  ecclesiastics  from  the  Norman 

prominent  in  Round,  no.  78;  Ln  no.  H14  the  bishops  and  abbots  are  the  judges; 
in  no.  116,  two  abbots  and  five  laymen.  The  curiae  in  which  the  vicomte  appears 
may  in  some  cases  have  been  local.    Cf.  note  201. 

Liwe  noir,  no.  21;  Delisle,  S  -Smiveur ,  no.  13.    Delisle,  p.  3,  considers  these 
men  to  have  been  regents;  Stapleton,  i,  p.  xxiv,  note  o,  calls  them  justiciars.  Cf. 
G.  B.  Adams,  in  Yale  Law  Journal,  April,  1914,  note  39. 
S82  Pigeon,  Le  diocese  d'Avranches,  ii.  673. 

Round,  nos.  78,  1190;  Archaeologia,  xxvii.  26.    Cf.  MabUlon,  Annales,  v. 

593- 

DevUle,  Analyse,  p.  20.  We  have  no  record  of  the  writ  under  which  he 
acted,  but  we  have  (Davis,  no.  98)  one  of  the  same  year  addressed  to  him  in  Eng- 
land. 

Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  219. 

Delisle,  S.Sauveur,  nos.  36,  42:  Round,  no.  78  (Davis,  nos.  92,  123,  132);  all 
subsequent  to  1066.  In  the  first  two  instances  he  is  at  the  head  of  the  body.  The 
writ  in  Round,  no.  464  (Davis,  no.  97),  evidently  relates  to  England  and  not  to 
Normandy,  for  an  examination  of  the  original  in  the  Archives  of  the  Calvados 
shows  that  the  archbishop's  initial  is  not  J  but  L  (i.  e.,  Lanfranc). 

On  his  work  in  England  see  Round,  Feudal  England,  pp.  133-134,  138,  157, 
460;  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History,  i.  375;  Adams,  The  Local  King's  Court  in  the 
Reign  of  William  I,  in  Yale  Law  Journal,  April,  1914. 


58 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


curia,^^^  the  bishops  took  an  active  part  in  its  proceedings,  and  it 
is  probably  among  them,  rather  than  in  the  oflfice  of  seneschal, 
that  we  should  seek  the  origin  of  the  EngUsh  justiciarship.^s^  So, 
while  there  is  not  much  evidence  for  the  sending  of  special  justices 
to  hold  a  local  court,  the  Norman  origin  of  this  practice  "  is  not 
likely  to  be  questioned." 

In  this  sketch  of  Norman  institutions  under  the  Conqueror  it 
has  been  necessary  here  and  there,  especially  in  studying  the 
curia  and  the  judicial  supremacy  of  the  duke,  to  use  e\'idence  later 
than  1066,  and  just  to  that  extent  the  possibiUty  exists  that  the 
result  is  vitiated  by  influences  from  England  or  by  the  changed 
conditions  of  the  Conqueror's  later  years.  WilUam  reigned  fifty- 
two  years  in  Normandy,  and  this  long  period  must  have  seen 
notable  changes  in  the  institutions  of  the  duchy,  changes  which 
we  are  no  longer  in  a  position  to  trace  as  a  whole,  even  to  the 
extent  of  contrasting  the  earUer  and  the  later  years  of  the  reign. 
All  that  is  now  possible  is  to  seek  to  indicate  at  each  point  the 
dates  of  the  individual  bits  of  evidence  used.  But  while  there  was 
development  under  Wilham,  we  do  not  know  to  what  extent 
there  was  iimovation;  and,  scanty  as  are  the  earUer  sources,  they 
indicate  that  much  of  the  account  would  hold  true  of  the  reign  of 

288  Norman  Conquest,  i  (1877).  174,  iii  (1875).  290. 

Stubbs's  view  of  the  derivation  of  the  justiciarship  from  the  seneschalship 
(/.  c,  i.  37s)  has  also  been  criticized  by  Vernon  Harcourt,  His  Grace  the  Steward,  pp. 
11-18,  but  on  the  vmtenable  ground  that  WUliam  Fitz  Osbem  "  was  never  dapifer 
to  William."  In  addition  to  the  statements  of  the  chroniclers,  which  Harcourt 
seeks  to  explain  away,  Fitz  Osbem  witnesses  as  dapifer,  along  with  the  dapifer 
Gerald,  in  a  charter  for  Saint-Ouen  (Collection  Moreau,  xxii.  i  lov,  from  the  original; 
Cartulary  of  Saint-Ouen,  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  286/5,  no.  338),  and 
issues  a  charter  for  Saint-Denis  in  which  he  styles  himself  '  ego  WUlelmus  Osbemi 
filius  consul  et  dapifer  WUleLmi  Anglorum  regis  '  (Archives  Xationales,  LL.  1158, 
p.  SQo).  For  the  genealogy  of  the  family  see  Reviie  catholique  de  Normandie,  six. 
261.  A  William  Fitz  Osbem,  apparently  a  canon  of  Rouen,  attests  in  1075  (Archives 
of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  G.  8739).  On  the  English  justiciars  in  this  reign  see  Davis, 
p.  xx\Tii. 

Adams,  in  Yah  Law  Journal,  April,  1914,  p.  18.  The  clearest  cases  are  the 
inquest  held  at  Caen  'iuxta  preceptum  regis'  by  Richard,  vicomte  of  A\Tanches, 
1070-1079  (Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  Lnstr.  65;  Davis,  no.  117),  and  the  ordeal  held 
at  Bayeux  '  precepto  regis  '  and  reported  to  the  king  1067-1079  (Archaeologia^ 
xxvii.  26). 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


59 


Robert  I  and  even  of  that  of  Richard  II.^^^  Under  Robert  there 
was  feudal  tenure;  probably  also  military  service  had  been 
assessed,  at  least  upon  the  monasteries.  Under  his  father,  besides 
the  survivals  of  the  older  phrases  of  immunity,  there  are  specific 
grants  of  ducal  jurisdiction.  Already  the  duke  has  a  camera  and 
distinguishes  between  his  regular  and  irregular  sources  of  income, 
already  he  makes  permanent  grants  from  the  revenue  of  his 
tolls  and  vicomtes.  He  has  certain  household  ofl5cers,  even  in 
two  instances  a  so-called  chancellor  who  disappeared  with  him, 

For  the  sources  concerning  Robert  I,  see  Appendix  C.  The  principal  charters 
of  Richard  II,  few  of  which  throw  light  on  the  institutions  of  the  period,  are  as 
follows : 

Dotalicium  ludithe:  Martene  and  Durand,  Thesaurus,  i.  122.  Cf.  Dolalicium 
Adele:  d'Achery,  Spicilegium  (Paris,  1723),  iii.  390. 

Bernai,  foundation,  August,  1025  (1027).  Neustria  Pia,  p.  398;  Le  Prevost, 
Eure,  i.  284.  On  the  date  see  Appendix  B,  no.  5. 

Chartres  cathedral.  D'Achery,  iii.  386;  Carlulaire  de  Nolre-Dame  de  Charlres, 
ed.  L^pinois  and  Merlet,  i.  85. 

Saint-Pere  de  Chartres.  Three  charters:  Carlulaire,  ed.  Guerard,  i.  92,  93,  106; 
the  original  of  the  third  is  in  MS.  Lat.  9221,  no.  4. 

Fecamp.  Three  charters,  all  original.   See  Appendix  B,  nos.  2,  3,  5. 

Jumieges.  (i)  General  confirmation:  cartulary  22  in  Archives  of  the  Seine- 
Infdrieure,  f.  7;  vidimus  of  1499  and  1529  in  the  same  archives;  copy  in  MS.  Lat. 
n.  a.  1245,  f.  165;  substance  in  confirmation  of  Henry  II,  Neustria  Pia,  p.  323; 
Monaslicon,  vii.  1087;  DeHsle-Berger,  no.  527;  on  the  date  see  Appendix  B,  no.  5. 
(2)  Attests  exchange  with  Saint- Vaast:  Pfister,  Robert  le  Pieux,  no.  72.  (3)  Attests 
grant  of  Albert,  abbot  of  Micy:  original  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure;  Ma- 
biUon,  Vetera  Analecla,  p.  431 ;  Bry,  Histoire  du  Perche,  p.  51.  (4)  Confirms  priory 
of  Longueville,  1012:  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  283.  These  four  charters  are  now 
published  hy  Vernier,  nos.  12  (cf.  in),  10,  9,  7. 

Lisieux  cathedral.  M.  A.  N.,  xiii.  9;  H.  de  Formeville,  Histoire  de  I'eveche-comte 
de  Lisieux,  i,  p.  ccccxlii;  V.  Hunger,  Histoire  de  Verson,  pieces,  no.  2. 

Marmoutier.  Delisle,  iS.-Sa«De«r,  no.  3;  Revue  catholique,  v'n.  42^;  the  original 
is  noted  in  B.  E.  C,  xvii.  405. 

Mont-Saint-Michel,  (i)  Appointment  of  Hildebert  as  abbot,  1009:  original  in 
Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  14982;  Martene  and  Durand,  Thesaurus,  i.  124.  (2) 
Grant  of  Verson,  etc.:  cartulary,  f.  22v;  Archives  Nationales,  JJ.  66,  no.  1494; 
M.  A.  N.,  xii.  108;  Round,  no.  701.  (3)  Grant  of  Saint-Pair,  etc.:  cartulary,  f.  20; 
JJ.  66,  no.  1493;  Mabillon,  Annates  (1739),  iv.  651;  Round,  no.  702;  Neustria  Pia, 
p.  378;  M.  A .  N.,  xii.  109.  (4)  Attests  charter  of  his  mother  Gonnor:  M.  A .  N.,  xii. 
108;  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur,  no.  2;  Round,  no.  703.   2-4  in  Hunger,  Verson,  nos.  1,3,4. 

Saint-Ouen.  Various  originals  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inf6rieure  and  copies 
in  Collection  Moreau,  xviii,  a.nd  MS.  Lat.  54^3  (niany  of  the  early  documents  are 
false).   See,  in  part,  Mtisee  des  archives  deparkmenlaleSj  no.  21;  Chevreux  and 


6o 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


and  he  holds  his  court  at  Fecamp  at  Easter  and  other  great 
occasions. 

If,  in  conclusion,  we  try  to  summarize  the  constitution  of  Nor- 
mandy on  the  eve  of  the  invasion  of  England,  certain  features 
stand  out  with  reasonable  clearness.  The  organization  of  Norman 
society  is  feudal,  with  the  accompaniments  of  feudal  tenure  of 
land,  feudal  miHtary  organization,  and  private  justice,  but  it  is  a 
feudalism  which  is  held  in  check  by  a  strong  ducal  power.  The  mil- 
itary service  owing  to  the  duke  has  been  systematically  assessed 
and  is  regularly  enforced.  Castles  can  be  built  only  by  the  duke's 
license  and  must  be  handed  over  to  him  on  demand.  Private  war 
and  the  blood  feud  are  carefully  restricted,  and  private  jurisdic- 
tions are  restrained  by  the  reserved  jurisdiction  of  the  duke  and 
by  the  maintenance  of  a  public  local  administration.  The  duke 
keeps  a  firm  hand  on  the  Norman  church,  in  the  matter  both  of 
appointments  and  of  jurisdiction.  He  holds  the  monopoly  of 
coinage,  and  is  able  to  collect  a  considerable  part  of  his  income  in 
money.  The  administrative  machinery,  though  in  many  respects 
still  primitive,  has  kept  pace  with  the  duke's  authority.  His  local 
representative,  the  vicomte,  is  a  public  oflBcer  and  not  a  domanial 
agent;  his  revenues  are  regularly  collected;  and  something  has 
been  done  toward  creating  organs  of  fiscal  control  and  of  judicial 
administration.  The  system  shows  strength,  and  it  shows  or- 
ganizing power.  In  some  directions,  as  in  the  fixing  of  military 
obligations,  this  organizing  force  may  have  been  at  work  before 
the  Conqueror's  time,  but  much  must  have  been  due  to  his  efforts. 

Vernier,  Les  archives  de  Nortnandie,  no.  i;  Martene  and  Durand,  i.  121;  Le  Pre- 
vost,  Eure,  ii.  164,  413;  Pommeraye,  Hisioire  de  S.-Ouen,  p.  ^o^S. 

Saint-Quentin,  1015.  Hemere,  Augusta  Viromandorum,  p.  107;  Gallia  Chris- 
tiana, id.  instr.  284;  Nouveau  traile  de  diplomatique,  iv.  226  f. 

Saint-Riquier.  D'Achery,  Spicilegium  (1723),  ii.  332;  Hariulf,  ed.  Lot,  p.  185. 

Saint-Wandrille.  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  nos.  9-12. 

Seez  cathedral.  Attests  charter  of  William  of  Belleme :  library  of  Alenfon,  MS. 
177,  f.  28;  MS.  Lat.  1 1058,  f.  2. 

Grants  are  cited  for  Montivilliers  (Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  326)  and  Saint- 
Benigne  of  Dijon  (Le  Prevost,  Eure,  ii.  323;  Analecta  Divionensia,  ix.  175;  Deville, 
Analyse,  p.  34). 

Note  particularly  the  large  number  of  witnesses  to  the  charter  for  Bemai, 
among  others  all  the  bishops  of  the  province  and  thirteen  vicomtes:  Le  Prevost, 
Eure,  i.  284. 


WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR 


6i 


Stark  and  stem  and  wrathful,  whether  we  read  of  him  in  the 
classic  phrases  of  William  of  Poitiers  or  in  the  simple  speech  of  the 
Old  English  Chronicle,  the  personaUty  of  William  the  Conqueror 
stands  out  preeminent  in  the  midst  of  a  conquering  race,  but  it 
does  not  stand  alone.  The  Norman  barons  shared  the  high- 
handed and  masterful  character  of  their  leader,  and  the  history  of 
Norman  rule  in  southern  Italy  and  Sicily  shows  that  the  Norman 
genius  for  political  organization  was  not  confined  to  the  dukes  of 
Rouen. It  was  in  England,  however,  that  this  constructive 
talent  found  its  chief  opportunity,  and  there,  as  in  Normandy, 
the  directing  hand  was  that  of  the  sovereign,  who,  Hke  his  fol- 
lowers, found  a  wider  field  for  qualities  of  state-building  which 
he  had  already  shown  at  home. 

The  organization  of  England  by  the  Normans  and  the  problem 
of  the  extent  of  Norman  influence  upon  its  government  form  no 
part  of  our  subject,  but  must  be  left,  after  this  attempt  to  fill  in 
the  Norman  background,  to  the  historian  of  English  institutions. 
Of  him  we  may,  however,  ask  that  he  proceed  with  due  regard  to 
the  interaction  of  Normandy  and  England  during  the  imion 
which  continued,  with  scarcely  an  interruption,  for  nearly  a 
century  and  a  half  after  1066,  and  to  the  parallel  constitutional 
development  of  the  duchy  which  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  following 
chapters  to  examine. 

The  Norman  kingdom  of  Sicily  lies  beyond  the  limits  of  the  present  volume. 
I  have  tried  to  sketch  its  European  position  in  my  Normans  in  European  History, 
chapters  7  and  8;  and  I  have  discussed  certain  of  its  institutions  in  E.H.R.,  xxvi. 
433-447,  641-665.  See  also  my  paper  at  the  Millenary  Congress,  Quelques  prob- 
lemes  del'histoiredes  institutions  anglo-normandes  (Rouen,  19 11),  pp.  7-10;  and  injra, 
Chapter  III,  p.  iii  f.,  Chapter  VI,  pp.  232-234. 


CHAPTER  II 


NORMANDY  UNDER  ROBERT  CURTHOSE  AND 
WILLIAM  RUFUS 

The  strength  of  the  Conqueror's  system  of  government  in  Nor- 
mandy was  to  be  severely  tested  during  the  reign  of  his  son  Robert 
Cur  those.  ^  Whatever  amiable  and  knightly  qualities  contem- 
poraries were  willing  to  ascribe  to  Robert,  no  one  appears  to  have 
considered  him  a  strong  or  even  a  prudent  ruler,  and  his  indo- 
lence, instability,  and  easy-going  irresponsibility  soon  earned  for 
him  such  epithets  as  the  soft  duke,  the  lazy  duke,  and  the  sleepy 
duke.  Lack  of  governance  was  writ  large  over  his  reign,  and  its 
results  are  set  forth  in  the  gloomy  picture  of  the  state  of  Nor- 
mandy drawn  by  the  fullest  of  contemporary  narratives,  that  of 
Ordericus  Vi talis.  ^  It  is  a  dreary  tale  of  private  war,  murder,  and 
pillage,  of  perjury,  disloyalty,  and  revolt,  for  which  the  good 
monk  finds  a  parallel  only  in  the  worst  days  of  Israel.  Destruction 
fell  especially  upon  the  peasants  and  upon  the  possessions  of  the 
church:  "  that  which  the  locust  hath  left  hath  the  cankerworm 
eaten,  and  that  which  the  cankerworm  hath  left  hath  the  cater- 
pillar eaten."  ^  And  when  the  nuns  of  Holy  Trinity  at  Caen  came 
to  reckon  up  their  losses  year  after  year  in  land  and  cattle  and 
produce  and  rents  and  men,  their  matter-of-fact  summary  is  more 

'  There  is  no  modem  account  of  this  period  of  Norman  history.  The  sketch  of 
Robert  Curthose  by  G.  LeHardy,  in  the  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  des  Antiquaires  de 
Normandie,  x.  1-184  (1882),  is  partisan  and  quite  inadequate;  at  my  suggestion 
a  critical  biography  is  being  prepared  by  Charles  W.  David,  of  the  University  of 
Washington.  Freeman's  William  Rttfus  is  useful  for  the  narrative  history  of  the 
period. 

*  Ed.  Le  Prevost,  iii.  261,  289-291,  351,  357,  412,  463,  473,  475  f.,  iv.  98  f.,  loi, 
106, 163, 172,  178-182, 192, 199  f.,  206,  219-221,  227  f.;  and  his  verses  in  Atinuaire- 
Bulletin  de  la  Societe  de  I'histoire  de  France,  1863,  ii.  1-7.  See  also  William  of 
Malmesbury,  Gesta  Regum,  pp.  460,  462,  473  f.;  and  cf.  Freeman,  William  Rufus, 
i.  190,  19s,  ii-  367  f.,  394;  and  Sauvage,  Troarn,  pp.  21  f.,  71. 

'  Ordericus,  iii.  357. 

62 


ROBERT  CURTHOSE 


63 


eloquent  of  the  Norman  anarchy  than  are  many  pages  of  the 
chronicler:  * 

Willelmus  comes  Ebroicensis  ex  quo  rex  Willelmus  finivit  aufer[t]  Sanctg 
Trinitati  et  abbatissg  et  dominabus  .vii.  agripennos  vine§  et  duos  equos  et 
.XX.  solidos  Rotomagensium  nummorum  et  salinas  de  Escrenevilla  et  uno- 
quoque  anno  .xx.  libras  de  Gauceio  et  de  Bavent.  Ricardus  filius  Herluini 
duas  villas,  Tassilei  et  Montboen.  Willelmus  camerarius  filius  Rogeri  de 
Candos  decimam  de  Hainovilla.  Willelmus  Baivel  .xx.  boves  quos  sumpsit 
apud  OsberniviUam.  Robertus  de  Bonesboz  eandem  villam  depredavit. 
Robertus  de  Uz  terram  de  .iiii.  puteis  et  de  Cierneio.  Willelmus  Bertrannus 
duos  vavasores  et  eorum  decimam  et  .v.  solidos  quoque  anno  apud  Colum- 
beUas.  Ricardus  de  Corceio  .iiii"''.  libras  et  .xx.  oves.  NigeUusde  Oillei  .ii. 
boves.  Rogerus  de  Avesnes  in  equis  et  in  denariis  et  in  aliis  rebus  .viiii. 
libras.  Robertus  Pantolf  in  denariis  et  in  aliis  rebus  .vi.  libras.  Willelmus 
ludas  .XX.  solidos.  Rogerus  dispensator  et  Rogerus  de  Scutella  .xi.  boves  et 
.ii?^  equos  et  predam  de  Folebec,  et  homines  vulneraverunt  et  verberaverunt 
in  pace.  Robertus  de  Molbrai  .Ixviii.  libras  quoque  anno  post  mortem  regis. 
Eudo  vicecomes  .xx.  boves.  Adelofdus  camerarius  episcopi  Baiocensis  ter- 
ram de  Anglicivilla.  Ranulfus  vicecomes  Ricardus  de  Corceio  .xv.  libras 
de  terra  de  Grandicampo,  et  Ranulfus  idem  et  iii.  boves  et  .ii.  equos  de 
Duxeio  et  de  Aneriis  et  .v.  acros  annone  in  Aneriis  et  decimam  de  Boivilla. 
Ingelrannus  prata  de  Grai.  Comes  Henricus  pedagium  accepit  de  Chetel- 
hulmo  et  de  omni  Constantino  et  super  hoc  facit  operari  homines  Sanctg 
Trinitatis  de  eadem  villa  et  patria  ad  castella  suorum  hominum.  Alveredus 
de  Ludreio  aufert  Sanct§  Trinitati  tres  boves  apud  Teuvillam  et  terram  de 
eadem  villa  devastat.  Et  Willelmus  de  Veteri  ponto  prata  de  predicta  villa. 
Et  Hulmum  aufertur  Sanctg  Trinitati  iniuste.  Adeloldus  predictus  cam- 
erarius episcopi  aufert  annonam  de  Grandicampo  et  quamplures  alias.  Hugo 
de  Redeveris  aufert  .v.  modios  vini  et  vineam  quoque  anno  ad  Vernun. 
Fulco  de  Aneriis  .i.  equum  et  viii.  solidos  et  iii.  minas  de  fa  vis  et  omnem 
terram  devastat  ita  quod  nuUus  ibi  lucrari  potest.  Willelmus  Bertrannus 
accepit  de  Osbertivilla  duos  boves  et  postea  viros  misit  in  carcerem.  Willel- 
mus de  Rupieres  accepit  boves  et  porcos  domne  abbatiss§  et  homines  super 
terram  eius  interfecit.  Idem  Willelmus  pecuniam  metatoris  abbatiss?  de 
Ruwres  accepit  et  annonam  fecit  inde  ferri  et  apud  Ranvillam  duos  viro[s] 
interfecit  et  complures  vulneravit ;  et  item  Robertus  de  Guz  aufert  ei  unum 
equum  apud  Monboen.  Hugo  Paganus  aufert  abbatissg  silvam  de  Salan  et 
sacerdotem  verberavit  in  pace,  et  Willelmus  Gernun  silwam  incidit  et  evellit 
quantum  potest.  Ranulfus  f rater  Igeri  saisiavit  terram  abbatiss?  super  hoc 
quod  ipsa  sibi  terminum  respondendi  dederat  et  inquirendi  si  deberet  ei  inde 
rectum  facere.  Brenagiimi  autem  interrogant  et  Rainaldus  Landun  et  alii 
ministri  abbatisse  et  monent  eam  placitare.  Inde  Robertus  de  Genz  aufert  ei 

*  Cartulary,  MS.  Lat.  5650,  f.  3gv-40v.  The  list  of  excommunicates  in  the 
Benedictional  of  Archbishop  Robert,  ed.  H.  A.  Wilson  (London,  1903),  p.  166,  which 
seems  to  belong  to  this  period,  may  be  connected  with  depredations  on  ecclesiastical 
lands. 


64 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


terrain  de  Donmaisnil  et  annonam  inde  tulit  et  oves  et  boves  et  alia  mialta,  et 
vi  adhuc  detinet.  Et  Radulfus  de  Cortlandun  ponit  terrain  abbatiss§  in 
gravatoria  *  et  vi  vult  ibi  earn  tenere,  quod  nunquam  fuit  amplius. 

Such  a  record  shows  the  weakness  of  the  duke  as  well  as  the 
sufferings  of  the  duchy.  Many  of  the  barons  were  in  more  or  less 
constant  revolt,  others  were  easily  bought  away  from  him.  Many 
of  his  own  castles  were  denied  him,  and  adulterine  strongholds 
sprang  up.^  Even  on  these  conditions  Robert  held  but  a  part  of 
Normandy.  Prince  Henry  ruled  Domfront  and  the  Cotentin 
during  a  good  part  of  this  reign;  King  William  won  over  the  lands 
east  of  the  Seine  and  proved  a  serious  menace  elsewhere.^  Even 
the  nominal  unity  of  the  duchy  was  lost. 

Amidst  these  narratives  of  confusion  and  revolt  there  is  small 
place  for  the  machinery  of  government,  and  we  are  not  surprised 
that  the  chroniclers  are  almost  silent  on  the  subject.  Robert's 
reliance  on  mercenaries  *  shows  the  breakdown  of  the  feudal  ser- 
vice, which  may  also  be  illustrated  by  an  apparent  example  of 
popular  levies;  ^  his  constant  financial  necessities  point  to  the 
demoralization  of  the  revenue.  The  rare  mention  of  his  curia^^ 
implies  that  it  met  but  rarely.  Still,  these  inferences  are  negative 
and  to  that  extent  inconclusive,  and  even  the  detailed  account  of 
Ordericus  is  largely  local  and  episodic,  being  chiefly  devoted  to 
events  in  the  notoriously  troubled  region  of  the  south,  and  is  also 
colored  by  the  sufferings  and  losses  of  the  church.  Only  from 
documentary  evidence  shall  we  get  a  wholly  impersonal  view  of 
the  ducal  goverrmient. 

First  of  all,  there  is  something  to  be  learned  from  the  statement 
of  ducal  rights  under  the  Conqueror,  the  so-called  Consuetudines 
et  iusticie,  drawn  up  imder  the  joint  auspices  of  Robert  and  Wil- 
liam Rufus  in  the  summer  of  109 1.^^  Just  as  the  coronation  char- 

'  Du  Cange,  s.  v.,  cites  only  this  passage. 

'  Cf.  the  Fecamp  charter,  Appendix  E,  no.  4c. 

'  Note  also  the  cession  of  Gisors  to  PhUip  I  as  the  price  of  his  aid  against  William: 
Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  18;  Fliche,  Le  regne  de  Philippe  I",  p.  293. 
*  Ordericus,  iii.  266  f.;  cf.  William  of  Malmesbury,  Gesla  Regum,  p.  468. 
'  Ordericus,  iii.  415. 

1°  Ibid.,  iii.  267,  iv.  105;  cf.  Wace,  lines  10927  £f. 
"  Ordericus,  iii.  297,  303,  381. 
"  Appendix  D. 


ROBERT  CURTHOSE 


6S 


ter  of  Henry  I  offers  the  best  picture  of  the  abuses  of  the  Red 
King's  reign  in  England,  so  this  inquest  reflects  the  history  of  the 
preceding  four  years  in  Normandy.  But  whereas  the  English 
record  shows  the  strength  of  government,  the  Norman  shows  its 
weakness:  Henry  I  promises  to  refrain  from  abuses  of  royal 
authority,  the  Norman  prince  seeks  by  appeal  to  ancient  prece- 
dent to  recover  power  that  has  slipped  from  his  hands.  Of  the 
ducal  rights  which  the  Conqueror  upheld  maxime  et  viriliter,  only 
a  portion  is  here  recorded,  but  these  are  evidently  chosen  with 
reference  to  the  existing  situation  —  quia  magis  necessana  sunt. 
They  point  to  the  usual  evils  of  a  weak  rule  in  this  period,  private 
war,  private  castles,  and  private  coinage;  emphasizing  the  body 
of  restrictions  upon  private  war  which  had  been  so  carefully 
built  up  under  Robert's  predecessors  with  respect  to  the  duke's 
court,  army,  and  forests,  and  the  actual  conduct  of  hostilities 
between  his  barons,  and  asserting  the  right  of  the  duke  to  take 
over  his  vassals'  castles  and  prevent  the  building  of  new  ones. 
The  whole  reads  like  a  legal  commentary  on  the  narrative  of 
Ordericus. 

Another  commentary,  this  time  ecclesiastical,  can  be  read  in 
the  canons  of  the  council  held  at  Rouen  in  February  1096,  as  a 
preliminary  to  the  First  Crusade.'*  These  are  concerned  chiefly 
with  the  enforcement  of  the  Truce  of  God,  already  established  in 
Normandy  and  recently  reenacted  by  the  council  of  Clermont, 
but  requiring  amplification  because  of  the  weakness  of  the  lay 
power.'*  All  men  from  the  age  of  twelve  upward  were  required  to 
take  an  oath  to  observe  its  provisions  and  to  give  military  aid 
for  their  enforcement;  and  anathema  was  pronounced  against 
counterfeiters  and  brigands  and  all  who  might  give  them  aid  or 
comfort.  The  protection  of  the  farmer  at  his  plow,  a  bit  of  old 
Scandinavian  custom,  received  ecclesiastical  sanction.'^  All 
churches  were  to  hold  their  property  as  they  had  held  it  under  the 
Conqueror.  Excellent  decrees,  says  Ordericus,'*  but  of  little  profit 
to  the  peace  of  the  church  because  of  the  failure  of  the  duke's 
justice.  At  best,  however,  the  council  of  Rouen  was  but  a  pale 

"  Ordericus,  iii.  470-473.  Cf.  Chapter  I,  note  106. 

1*  Cf.  supra,  Chapter  I,  note  147.       "  iii.  473. 


66 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


reflection  of  that  of  Clermont:  it  left  untouched  the  problem  of 
celibacy  and  the  lay  investiture  of  bishops  and  abbots,  and  placed 
no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  shameless  simony  and  corruption  of 
Robert's  dealings  with  ecclesiastical  offices.  The  case  of  the  bish- 
opric of  Lisieux,  taken  over  by  Ranulf  Flambard  for  his  own 
minor  son,  and  later  sold  to  William  of  Paci,  is  a  particularly 
flagrant  instance. 

Best  of  all,  however,  if  we  can  but  read  it  aright,  is  Robert's 
own  commentary  as  written  in  the  ducal  charters  of  his  reign.  As 
the  only  surviving  acts  of  sovereign  power,  these  show  us  the 
ducal  government  in  action  and  tell  their  own  tale  of  localism  and 
weakness.  Those  of  which  we  have  knowledge  are  the  following, 
which  are  here  arranged  by  the  ecclesiastical  establishments  for 
whose  benefit  they  were  issued : 

1.  Bayexjx  cathedral.  24  April  1089,  at  Vernon.  Various  specific 
grants.  Livre  noir,  no.  4;  extract  in  Delisle,  Saint-Sauveur,  pieces,  no.  44; 
Round,  no.  1433 ;  Davis,  no.  308.  Trigan,  Histaire  ecclesiaslique,  in.  402,  cites 
the  original. 

2.  Bayeux,  Saint-Vigor.  1089,  at  Eu.  Confirms  the  restoration  of  the 
monastery,  its  possessions,  and  the  rights  of  the  bishop  over  it.  Livre  noir, 
no.  6;  Livre  rouge,  nos.  104.  105,  where  '  Guillelmus  camerarius  '  is  added  to 
the  -vvitnesses;  J.-F.  Faucon,  Essai  historique  sur  le  prieure  de  Sainl-Vigor-le- 
Grand  (Bayeux,  1861),  p.  213;  Round,  no.  1434;  Davis,  no.  310. 

3.  Bayeux,  Saint-Vigor.  24  May  1096,  at  Bayeux.  Attests  charter  of 
Bishop  Odo  granting  Saint-Vigor  to  Saint-Benigne  of  Dijon.  Apparent 
original  (A)  and  early  copy  containing  additional  material  (B)  in  Archives  of 

"  See  Bohmer's  account  of  the  Norman  church  under  Robert,  Kirche  und  Stoat, 
pp.  142-146;  and  his  study  of  Serlo  of  Bayeux,  in  Neues  Archiv,  xxii.  701-738. 
The  case  of  Turold,  bishop  of  Bayeux,  deposed  for  irregularities  by  Paschal  n  in 
1107,  should  be  added.  See  Dom  G.  Morin  in  Revue  d'histoire  ecclesiastiqiie,  v. 
284-289;  and  W.  Tavemier's  biographical  investigations  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  fran- 
zosiscke  Sprache  iind  Litteratiir,  xxxvi-xlii.  For  Odo  of  Bayeux,  see  further  Bour- 
rienne,  in  Rente  calholiqiie  de  Normandie,  vii-x.  On  the  investiture  question,  see 
further  the  bull  of  Paschal  II  published  bj'  Levison,  in  Neues  Archiv,  xsxv.  427-431 ; 
B.  E.  C,  Ixxi.  465. 

For  Robert's  attestation  to  a  charter  of  William  Rufus  for  Durham  during 
his  visit  to  England  in  1091,  see  Davis,  Regesla,  no.  318.  For  a  charter  of  iioo- 
1106  confirming  his  brothers'  grants  to  Bath  Priory,  see  Two  Chartularies  of  the 
Priory  of  Si.  Peter  at  Bath,  ed.  Hunt  (Somerset  Record  Society,  1893),  i.  47,  no. 
44.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  mention  of  'Robertus  comes'  in  a  notice 
may  refer  also  to  the  period  before  his  father's  death;  e.  g.,  Lot,  S.-Wandrilk, 
pp.  98-100,  where  I  am  inclined  to  see  Robert  Curthose  rather  than,  with  Lot, 
Robert  count  of  Eu. 


ROBERT  CURTHOSE 


67 


the  Cote-d'Or,  where  a  cartulary  copy  (no.  43)  of  B  has  inserted  a  confirma- 
tion by  Bishop  Philip  d'Harcourt  at  the  end.  Printed  in  E.  Perard,  Recueil 
de  pieces  servant  d,  I'histoire  de  Bourgogne,  p.  206  (B) ;  U.  Plancher,  Histoire  de 
Bourgogne,  i,  preuves,  xxxii  (B);  Migne,  Patrologia,  civ.  475  (B);  Gallia 
Christiana,  xi.  instr.  76  (B);  Faucon,  Saint-Vigor-le-Grand,  p.  216  (A); 
Revue  catholique  de  Normandie,  x.  280  (translation  from  A,  with  some  variants 
from  B).  Cf.  Analecla  Divionensia,  ix.  200-202. 

4.  Bayexjx,  Saint -Vigor.  24  May  1096,  at  Bayeux.  Confirms  Odo's 
grant  of  the  same  date.^^  Original  in  Bibliotheque  municipale  at  Bayeux, 
titres  sceUes,  no.  9,  with  fragments  of  applied  seal;  copy  of  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury in  cartulary  in  Archives  of  the  Cote-d'Or,  no.  44.  Revue  catholique,  x. 
283  f.  ( =  V.  Bourrienne,  Odon  de  Conteville,  p.  132),  from  original;  date  only 
in  Ordericus,  ed.  Le  Prevost,  iii.  265,  thence  in  Davis,  no.  376. 

5.  Beauvais,  Saint-Lucien.  14  July  1096,  at  Rouen  '  in  capitulo.' 
Assents  to  charter  of  Stephen,  count  of  Aumale,  granting  Saint-Martin  d' 
Auchy.  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  19,  apparently  from  lost  original.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Inventaire  sommaire,  the  Archives  of  the  Oise  possess  only  a 
late  mention  of  this  doctiment  in  H.  1302. 

1'  As  the  inaccurate  reproduction  of  the  dates  of  these  charters  has  given  rise  to 
unnecessary  confusion,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  print  them  exactly: 

Odo  A:  'Anno  ab  incamatione  domini  .m.xc.vi?  indictione  .iiii*  concurrente 
.vii°  epacta  .xxtiiiif  xviiii?  anno  principatus  domni  Roberti  Vuillemi  regis  Anglorum 
filii  ducis  Normanni§  hgc  cartha  confirmata  est  et  sigillo  suo  signata.  Actum 
publice  Baiocas  mense  maio  die  xx  iiii.  viiii  kal.  iunii  luna  .xxvii.' 

Odo  B :  '  Anno  ab  Lncarnatione  domini  .mxcvi.  indictione  .iiii?  concurrente  .ii? 
xviiii.  anno  principatus  domni  Roberti  Willelmi  regis  Anglorum  filii  ducis  Norman- 
nie  hec  carta  confirmata  est  et  sigiUo  suo  signata.  Actum  publice  Baiocas  mense 
maio  die  .xxiiii?  eiusdem  mensis  .viiii  kal.  iimii  luna  .xxvii?  feria  septima  bissextili 
anno.' 

Robert:  'Anno  ab  incamatione  domini  .m°xc?vi°  indictione  .iiii?  concurrente 
.vii?  epacta  .xx™^iii?  .x°viiii?  anno  principatus  Rotberti  Guillelmi  regis  Anglorum 
filii  ducis  Normannig  hgc  carta  firmata  est  et  sigillo  suo  signata.  Actum  publice 
Baiocas  mense  maio  die  .xx  iiii.  viiii.  kal.  iunii  luna  .xx^vii?  ciclo  decennovennali 
.x°iiii?  EGO  HUGO  DIVIONENSIS  ECCLESIE  MONACHUS  lUSSU  EIUS- 
DEM ROBERTI  DUCIS  NORMANNIE  SCRIPSI  ET  SUBSCRIPSI  VICE 
CANCELLARII  RODULFL' 

The  different  elements  in  the  date  are  in  agreement  throughout  save  in  the  case 
of  the  concurrent,  which  is  wrongly  given  as  seven  in  Robert's  charter  and  the  first 
version  of  Odo's,  but  is  corrected  to  two  in  the  second  form  of  Odo's  charter.  It  is 
noteworthy  that  all  agree  in  dating  Robert's  reign  from  1077-1078.  In  Robert's 
charter  the  x  of  the  year  of  the  incarnation  has  been  almost  entirely  rubbed  out, 
either  by  time  or  by  some  one  who  attempted  to  bring  it  into  agreement  with  the 
generally  known  date  of  Robert's  accession,  and  this  has  misled  some  writers  into 
assigning  the  document  to  1106  (B.  E.  C,  xlviii.  175  f.;  Revtie  catholique  de  Nor- 
mandie, X.  282-285).  The  original  at  Bayeux,  however,  stiU  shows  traces  of  the  x, 
which  is  required  not  only  by  the  remaining  elements  of  the  date  but  also  by  the 
witnesses.  The  epact  in  Odo  A  may  have  been  corrected  at  the  time,  as  the  v  is 
faint. 


68 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


6.  Bec.  [1087-1080.]  Attests  charter  oi  Roger  of  Beaumont  for  the 
priory  of  Beaumont-le-Roger.  Cartulary  in  Bibliotheque  Mazarine,  MS. 
1212,  no.  i;  MS.  Lat.  13905,  f.  6v;  Collection  du  Vexin,  iv.  165,  xi.  256 
(with  a  fuller  list  of  witnesses  than  the  cartulary).  E.  Deville,  Le  cartulaire 
de  Beaumont-le-Roger  (Paris,  1912),  no.  i;  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  i.  205;  Round, 
no.  368. 

7.  Bec.  February  1092.  Confirms  the  grants  of  his  father  and  mother  on 
behalf  of  the  church  of  fimendreville  (Saint-Sever,  seat  of  the  priory  of 
Notre-Dame-du-Pre)  and  adds  the  tithe  of  the  hay  of  his  park  at  Rouen. 
Original,  in  poor  condition,  with  crosses  and  evidently  never  sealed,  in 
Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieiu-e,/ow</5  Bonne-Nouvelle ;  copy  in  MS.  Lat.  n. 
a.  1245,  f.  34;  extracts  in  MS.  Lat.  12884,  ff-  79v,  85.  Ncuslria  Pia,  p.  613, 
from  a  copy;  La  Roque,  iv.  1328;  translated  in  Farin,  Histoire  de  la  ville  de 
Rouen  (1731),  ii*.  151*.  The  witnesses,  incompletely  given  in  the  editions, 
are:  ' Willelmi  Rotomagensis  archiepiscopi,  Rodberti  comitis  Normannorum, 
Eustachii  comitis  Boloniensis,  Willelmi  episcopi  Diuielmensis,  Willelmi  de 
Wativilla,  Roberti  de  Monteforti,  Roberti  comitis  Mellentensis,  Willelmi 
Bertranni,  Ba[lduini?]  filii  Ans[chetilli]  de  Bellomonte,  Simonis  dapiferi, 
Eu[do]iiis  filii  Turstini  de  Constantino,  Gisleberti  filii  Bernardi,  Roberti  filii 
Alwardi.' 

8.  Bec.  [1091-1092.]^"  Attests  grant  of  privileges  and  jurisdiction  by 
Archbishop  William.  Lanfranci  Opera  (Paris,  1648),  p.  332;  Migne,  Patro- 
logia,  cl.  552;  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  17.  Dom  Jouvelin-Thibaut,  in  MS. 
Lat.  13905,  f.  52,  corrects  the  printed  text  and  adds  the  important  list  of  wit- 
nesses: 'Rotberti  comitis  Normannie,  Willelmi  archiepiscopi  Rothomagensis, 
Gisleberti  Ebroicensis  episcopi,  Gaufridi  episcopi  Constantiensis,  Willelmi 
episcopi  Dunelmensis,  Odonis  episcopi  Baiocensis,  Serlonis  episcopi  Sagien- 
sis,  Benedicti  archidiaconi,  Fulberti  archidiaconi,  GLrardi  archidiacom',  Gisle- 
berti scolastici,  Rogeri  secretarii.  Ricardi  filii  Willelmi,  Rogeri  fratris  abbatis 
Cadumensis,  Giraldi  abbatis  S.  WandregisOi.  Hugonis  abbatis  Cerasiensis, 
Nicholai  abbatis  S.  Audoeni,  Willelmi  abbatis  Cormehensis,  Gisleberti 
abbatis  Cadumensis,  Fulconis  abbatis  de  supra  Diva,  Willelmi  Ebroicensis 
comitis,  Gisleberti  Crispini,  Rotberti  de  Monteforti,  Rotberti  comitis  de 
Mellent,  Guillelmi  Crispini,  Radulfi  de  Conchis.' 

9.  Bec.  [1087-1096.]  Attests  various  gifts  of  Gerard  de  Goumay. 
Poree,  Bec,  i.  338  f. 

10.  Bec.  [1087-1096.]  Present  at  grant  of  freedom  of  toll  and  customs  by 
William  of  Breteuil,  attested  by  Robert,  count  of  Meulan,  and  Eustace,  count 
of  Boulogne.  Fragment  of  cartulary.  Archives  of  the  Eure,  H.  91,  f.  75. 

11.  Bec.  Confirms  foundation  of  priory  of  Envermeu.  "La  premiere 
charte  d'  Henry  I®''  n'  est  qu'  une  confirmation  de  celle  de  Robert,  sous  qui  la 
fondation  du  prieure  a  du  etre  faite  ":  Dom  Jouvelin-Thibault  in  MS.  Lat. 
13905,  f.  8ov;  cf.  Poree,  Bec,  i.  427,  note  3. 

12.  Bec.  Grants  to  Bec  one-half  of  Saint-Philbert-sur-RisIe  and  the 
church  of  Saint-fitienne-l'AUier.  Mention  in  charter  of  Henry  LL :  Delisle- 
Berger,  no.  624. 

The  fatal  illness  of  Geoffrey  of  Coutances  dates  from  August  1092,  in  which 
year  also  Fulk  of  Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive  seems  to  have  been  deposed. 


ROBERT  CURTHOSE 


69 


13.  Caen,  Saint-fitienne.  [Shortlyafter  1087.]  Grant  of  Vains(Manche). 
Appendix  E,  no.  i . 

14.  Caen,  Saint-fitienne.  [1091,  probably.]  Confirms  exchange  between 
Abbot  Gilbert  and  William  de  Tornebu.  Mention  in  Deville,  Analyse,  p.  31 ; 
cf.  p.  27. 

15.  Caen,  Saint-fitienne.  [1091,  probably.]  Joins  with  William  Rufus  in 
coniirming  this  exchange.  Modern  copy,  evidently  incomplete,  in  MS.  Lat. 
17135,  p.  12;  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1428,  f.  3V.  Mention  in  Deville,  p.  31. 

16.  Caen,  Saint-fitienne.  [1089-1091.]  Witnesses,  with  William  of  Saint- 
Calais,  bishop  of  Durham,  and  others,  a  charter  of  Hugh  Painel  granting  to 
Saint-fitienne  two-thirds  of  the  tithe  of  Fontenay-le-Pesnel.  MS.  Lat.  1 7 13 5, 
p.  23.  from  the  original,  now  lost;  MS.  Caen  108,  f.  lov,  from  lost  cartulary; 
modern  copy  in  Archives  du  Calvados.  Deville, ^na/y^e,p. 32;  cf.  C.Hippeau, 
L'abbaye  de  Saint-Elicnne  de  Caen  (M.  A.  N.,  xxi,  and  Caen,  1855),  p.  41. 

17.  Caen,  Saint-fitienne.  [1096.]  Attests  exchange  with  Dijon.  Appen- 
dix E,  no.  2,  from  original. 

18.  Caen,  Saint-fitienne.  [1101-1104.]  Grant  of  market  at  Cheux  (Calva- 
dos). Appendix  E,  no.  3,  from  original. 

19.  Caen,  La  Trinite.  [1087-1091.]  Grant,  with  the  consent  of  his  brother 
Henry,  of  lands  and  rights  near  Caen  and  a  market  at  Ouistreham  (Calvados) . 
MS.  Lat.  5650,  f.  34V.  Printed  by  Stapleton  in  Archaeological  Journal,  iii.  26 ; 
Round,  no.  423,  omitting  some  of  the  witnesses;  Davis,  no.  324. 

20.  Fecamp.  7  July  1088.  Restores  various  lands,  with  approval  of  his 
brother  Henry.  Appendix  E,  no.  4a,  from  original. 

21.  Fecamp.  [After  7  July  1088.]  Grant  of  fair  at  Fecamp.  Appendix  E, 
no.  4b,  from  original. 

22.  Fecamp.  [1089-1091]  at  Fecamp.  Renewal  of  preceding  grants  and 
seisin  by  '  hoc  lignum.'    Appendix  E,  no.  4c,  from  original. 

23.  Fecamp.  [Before  1091.]  Grant  of  land  of  Hugh  Mursard.  Appendix 
E,  no.  5. 

24.  JtTMiEGES.  30  March  1088.  Attests  with  his  brother  Henry  charter  of 
Ralph  Fitz  Ansere  granting  Beaunay  and  its  appurtenances  and  the  tithe 
of  Anneville-sur-Seine  (?  Seine-Inferieure).  Appendix  E,  no.  6,  from 
original. 

25.  JuMiEGES.  [1091-1095]  atLisieux.  Attests  grant  of  fitables  (Seine-In- 
ferieure) by  Ralph  Fitz  Ansere  and  invests  therewith  'per  lignum.'  Appen- 
dix E,  no.  7,  from  original. 

26.  Le  Mans,  Saint-Vincent.  Grants  tithe  of  his  revenues  in  the  castle  of 
Fresnay-sur-Sarthe.  Martene  and  Durand,  Veterum  Scriptorum  Amplis- 
sima  Collectio,  i.  568;  Cartulaire  de  Saint-Vincent-du-Mans,  ed.  Charles  and 
Menjot  d'Elbenne,  no.  532. 

27.  Maemoutier.  1091.  Grant  of  Ertald  in  Guernsey,  '  procurante 
Rotberto  comite  Normannie.'  MS.  Lat.  5441,  part  i,  p.  199.  Round,  no. 
1179;  extract  in  Dupont,  Histoire  du  Coientin,  i.  466,  no.  6. 

28.  Mont-Saint-Michel.  1088.  Grant  of  a  fair  at  Ardevon  (Manche) 
and  a  house  lot  at  Rouen.  Original  in  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1674,  no.  2 ;  cartulary  at 
Avranches,  MS.  210,  f.  8ov;  MS.  Lat.  5430A,  p.  256.  Published,  with  fac- 
simile, by  Delisle,  La  commemoration  du  Domesday-Book  i  Londres  (Paris, 


70 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


1886);  text  in  Annuaire-Bulletin  de  la  Societe  de  V  histoire  dt  France,  1886, 
pp.  177-184;  Round,  no.  717;  Davis,  no.  299. 

29.  Preaux.  [1087-1095.]  Attests  grant  in  Saint-Cyr-de-Salerne  (Eure) 
by  Roger  de  Beaumont.  Cartulary  in  Archives  of  the  Eure,  H.  711,  no.  388. 
Le  Prevost,  Eure,  iii.  97. 

30.  Preaux.  [1087-1096.]  Consents  to  grant  of  church  and  tithe  of  Le 
Bosgouet  (Eure)  by  Robert  of  Meulan.  Cartulary,  f.  130V.  Le  Prevost, 
Eure,  i.  378;  cf.  Delisle-Berger,  no.  675. 

31.  Rouen  cathedral.  15  August  1095  at  Rouen.  Grants  his  right  of  ier- 
nagium  in  Pierreval  (Seine- Inferieure) .  Cartulary,  in  Bibliotheque  de  Rouen , 
MS.  1 193,  ff-  47,  115V;  copy  therefrom  in  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1246,  f.  66;  vidimus 
of  1422  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  G.  3680.  La  Roque,  iii.  34,  from 
the  original  now  lost;  [Pommeraye],  Histoire  de  I'eglise  cathedrale  de  Rouen 
(Rouen,  1686),  p.  570  (mention);  Roimd,  no.  2;  Davis,  no.  384.  Round, 
followed  by  Davis,  omits  the  year  from  the  date. 

32.  Rouen  cathedral.  1096.  Grants  to  the  church  and  its  canon  WiUiam 
Fitz  Ogier  the  possessions  of  Osbert  the  priest  and  his  sons  in  Neaufles-Saint- 
Martin  (Eure).  Pretended  original  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  G. 
4069;  vidimus  of  1422,  ibid.,  G.  3680  ;  copy  in  cartulary,  f.  47.  Printed, with 
a  shght  omission,  in  Inventaire  sommaire,  under  G.  4069. 

33.  Rouen,  La  Trinite.  1091.  Attests  agreement  between  Abbot  Walter 
and  Ralph  of  Bee  concerning  the  tithe  of  AmfreviUe-la-Mi-\'oie  (Seine- 
Inferieure).  A.  De\d]le,  Chartularium  Monasierii  Sanciae  Trinitatis,  no.  83; 
Davis,  no.  317. 

34.  RotTEN,  Saint-Ouen.  [Before  1092.]  Present  at  exchange  temp. 
Abbot  Nicholas.  Cartulary  2?,bis  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  p.  487, 
no.  597.  Robert  was  also  present  at  the  translation  of  reUcs  29  April  1090: 
Normanniae  Nova  Chronica  (M.  A.  N'.,  xviii),  p.  8. 

35.  Saint-£vroul.  [1087-1102.]  Confirms  grant  of  Walter,  son  of  Gou- 
bert  of  Auffai,  and  grants  a  fair  at  Nctre-Dame-du-Parc  (Seine-Inferieure). 
Mentioned  by  Ordericus,  iii.  40. 

36.  Saumxtr,  Saint-Florent.  [1093]  at  Bonneville.  Notice  of  suit  in 
Robert's  curia  between  Lonlai  and  Saint-Florent,  followed  by  sealed  char- 
ter of  protection  addressed  to  Serlo,  bishop  of  Seez.  Livre  blanc  of  Saint- 
Florent,  in  Archives  of  the  Maine-et-Loire,  f.  116.  Ed.  Marchegay,  in 
M.A.N.,  XXX.  682;  Round,  no.  1115;  Davis,  no.  342. 

37.  Seez,  Saint-Martin.  Confirms  and  attests  grant  of  tithe  of  rents  in 
Argentan  by  Arnulf ,  son  of  Roger  of  Montgomery.  Livre  blanc,  copy  in  MS. 
Alengon  190,  f.  73V;  MS.  Fr.  18953,  p.  27. 

38.  Vendome.  1094.  Attests  charter  of  Ivo  TaiUebois  granting  Cristot 
(Calvados).  C.  Metais,  Cartulaire  de  la  Trinite  de  Vendome,  ii.  90,  no.  351; 
cf.  iii.  42. 

39.  Vendome.  1094.  Attests  gifts  in  Audrieu  (Calvados).  Ibid.,  ii.  90, 
no.  352. 

Before  subjecting  this  material  to  diplomatic  study,  we  may 
note  certain  general  facts  of  significance.  First  of  all,  the  total  is 
small,  only  thirty-nine  charters,  notices,  and  attestations  for  a 


ROBERT  CURTHOSE 


71 


reign  of  fifteen  years  (1087-1096,  iioa-1106),  only  seven  more 
than  can  be  identified  from  the  hand  of  Robert's  grandfather, 
Robert  the  Magnificent,^!  who  reigned  less  than  eight  years  and 
at  an  epoch  when  the  documentary  habit  was  much  less  well 
established.  It  may  be  that  later  times  were  indifferent  to  pre- 
serving charters  of  Robert  Curthose,  but  it  is  even  more  likely 
that  his  own  age  was  not  eager  to  secure  them.  As  confirmation 
at  his  hands  counted  for  Little,  none  of  these  charters  consist  of 
general  liberties  or  comprehensive  enumerations  of  past  grants; 
they  are  all  specific  and  immediate.  Furthermore,  so  far  as  can 
now  be  seen,  the  surviving  documents  are  all  authentic;  privi- 
leges of  the  Conqueror,  Henry  I,  or  Henry  II  were  worth  fabricat- 
ing, but  no  one  seems  to  have  thought  it  worth  while  to  invent  a 
charter  of  Robert.  Chronologically,  Robert's  charters  fall,  with 
only  one  certain  exception,  in  the  period  before  his  departure  for 
the  Crusade,  and  within  this  period  almost  wholly  either  in  the 
first  years  of  his  reign,  when  there  were  late  grants  of  his  father  to 
confirm  or  new  matters  to  settle,  or  in  the  year  of  his  departure, 
when  certain  final  dispositions  received  his  sanction;  the  lack  of 
documents  after  his  return  from  the  East  is  suggestive  of  his  polit- 
ical impotence.  Geographically  considered,  the  charters  concern 
chiefly  central  Normandy,  where  Robert  was  strongest;  at  the 
beginning  of  the  reign  they  reach  as  far  as  Mont-Saint-Michel  on 
the  one  hand  and  Fecamp  and  Jumieges  on  the  other,  but  for  the 
most  part  they  concern  Bee,  Preaux,  and  the  region  of  Caen 
and  Bayeux  which  was  his  last  refuge.  The  southern  border 
is  represented  by  single  grants  for  Saint-Evroul  and  Saint- 
Martin  of  Seez,  but  it  is  noteworthy  that  in  the  detailed  List 
of  Saint-Evroul's  acquisitions  in  this  period  no  mention  is 
made  of  the  duke's  confirmation  or  consent.^^  Likewise  sig- 
nificant is  the  absence  of  any  evidence  of  the  duke's  supremacy 
in  Henry's  region  of  the  Cotentin.^^    The  fact  that  five  of  these 

^1  See  the  list  in  Appendix  C. 

See  the  roll  of  ca.  1090-1098  printed  in  the  appendix  to  Ordericus,  v.  182- 
195.  His  consent,  however,  is  mentioned  by  WiUiam  de  la  Ferte-Mace  in  a 
grant  of  1093:  Denis,  Les  charles  de  S.-Julien  de  Tours,  no.  45. 

"  See,  however,  for  the  bishop  of  Coutances,  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  221.  A 
charter  of  Ranulfus  de  Podiis  for  Heauville,  Mid-Lent  1093,  is  granted  '  tempore 


72 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


charters  2^  contain  grants  of  markets  or  fairs  is  also  symptomatic 
of  Robert's  careless  disregard  of  valuable  rights. 

Of  the  thirty-nine  documents  only  seventeen,  less  than  one- 
half,  are  issued  in  Robert's  name,  the  others  being  either  notices 
of  his  acts  or  documents  of  his  barons  attested  by  him.  Of  the 
whole  number  ten  at  least  are  preserved  in  originals,  three,  that  is, 
of  the  attested  documents  (nos.  3,  24,  25)  and  seven  (nos.  4,  7, 18, 
20,  21,  22,  28),  possibly  eight  (no.  32),  of  Robert's  own  charters. 
The  material  is  not  abundant,  yet  it  is  sufficient  to  permit  of 
drawing  certain  conclusions  respecting  his  chancery  and  his  gov- 
ernment. The  documents  which  are  presented  to  him  for  attesta- 
tion were  naturally  drawn  up  by  the  interested  parties,  but  in  the 
case  of  the  duke's  own  charters  it  is  natural  to  look  for  something 
of  the  regularity  and  system  which  we  find  in  the  chancery  of  the 
Conqueror's  later  years  or  of  their  contemporary  PhiUp  I."  If  we 
fail  to  discover  this,  we  shall  have  convincing  evidence  of  the 
weakness  of  the  administrative  organization. 

Externally,  the  originals  of  Robert's  charters  present  no  uni- 
formity in  size,  handwriting,  or  mode  of  authentication.  Each  of 
the  seven  is  in  a  different  hand ;  only  one  (no.  28)  has  the  first  line 
in  capitals.  Five  of  the  duke's  charters  announce  the  apposition  of 
his  seal  (nos.  i,  2,  22,  31,  32),  which  is  mentioned  in  two  of  the 
other  documents  (nos.  3,  36) ;  but  only  two  of  the  surviving  orig- 
inals preserve  traces  of  the  seal,  no.  4,  to  which  it  was  appUed, 
and  nos.  20-22,  the  three  charters  for  Fecamp,  which  were  tied 
together  by  a  strip  of  white  leather,  secured  by  a  large  seal  of 
grayish  wax.  On  neither  of  these  seals  can  anything  be  distin- 

Roberti  Normannorum  comitis  '  (Bibliotheque  de  Grenoble,  MS.  1402,  f.  233;  cf. 
Revue  catholique  de  Normandie,  vii.  438),  but  a  bare  reference  of  this  sort  is  quite 
different  from  a  recognition  of  Robert's  authority  such  as  is  involved  in  his  attes- 
tation. For  such  references  elsewhere  see  the  charter  of  William,  son  of  William 
Fitz  Osbem,  for  Lire,  in  Le  Prevost,  Eiire,  i.  356;  a  grant  to  Marmoutier  '  tempore 
Philippi  regis  et  Rotberti  comitis  Normannorum,'  MS.  Lat.  5441,  part  2,  p.  87; 
and  a  grant  to  Preaux,  Round,  no.  321. 
Nos.  18,  19,  21,  28,  35. 

No  thorough  study  has  been  made  of  the  diplomatics  of  William  I;  cf.  supra, 
Chapter  I,  p.  53  f. ;  and  the  Facsimiles  of  Royal  and  other  Charters  in  the  British 
Museum,  ed.  Warner  and  Ellis.  For  Philip  I,  see  the  introduction  to  M.  Prou, 
Recueil  des  acles  de  Philippe  I". 


ROBERT  CURTHOSE 


73 


guished,  nor  has  any  loose  seal  survived.  No.  i8  has  a  long  tag 
projecting  from  the  parchment  of  the  charter,  but  no  seal  is 
aimounced  nor  is  there  now  evidence  that  one  was  attached. 
No.  28  shows  incisions  such  as  were  later  made  for  a  double  quevie, 
but  there  is  no  evidence  that  these  were  contemporary,  no  seal 
being  announced  in  the  document,  and  the  crosses  being  evidently 
regarded  as  sufficient.  Nos.  20  and  21  were  evidently  sealed  only 
after  no.  22  was  issued  and  attached  to  them;  nos.  7  and  32  were 
never  sealed.  In  every  case  the  signatures  of  the  duke  and  the 
principal  witnesses  are  accompanied  with  crosses,  and  it  is  clear 
that  this  was  considered  the  regular  and  essential  form  of  valida- 
tion. Another  indication  of  the  small  weight  attached  to  Robert's 
seal  is  seen  in  the  importance  assigned  to  the  accompanying  in- 
vestiture '  per  lignum  '  in  the  text  of  two  of  his  charters  (nos.  22, 
25)  and  '  per  unum  cultellum  '  in  another  (no.  31),  forms  which 
suggest  that  the  ducal  charter  did  not  differ  fundamentally  from  a 
private  agreement. 

The  style  of  the  charters  shows  the  greatest  variety.  The  duke 
entitles  himself  dux  Normannorum  (nos.  4,  18,  31),  dux  Norman- 
noruni  et  comes  Cenomannensium  (nos.  1,2),  dux  Normannorum  et 
prince ps  Cenomannorum  (no.  13),  Normannorum  atque  Cenoman- 
norum  princeps  (no.  19),  Normannie  princeps  et  Cenopiannorum 
comes  (no.  26),  gratia  Dei  princeps  Normannorum  (no.  7),  Dei 
gratia  dux  et  princeps  Normannorum  (nos.  20,  21),  Dei  gratia  Nor- 
mannorum dux  (no.  28),  Normannorum  comes  (no.  32).  In  no.  7 
he  is  also  filius  Willelmi  gloriosi  regis  Anglorum,  in  no.  28  filius 
Willelmi  gloriosissimi  Anglorum  regis,  in  nos.  19,  31,  and  2,2,  filius 
Willelmi  regis  Anglorum.  He  witnesses  as  comes  simply  in  nos. 
20,  22,  25;  as  comes  Normannie,  in  nos.  3,  8,  18,  24,  28;  as  comes 
Normannorum  in  nos.  7  and  17  (here  also  filius  Willelmi  regis 
Anglorum);  and  as  dux  Normannorum  in  nos.  4  and  16.  Nos.  4, 
13, 18,  20,  28,  32  begin  with  an  invocation  to  the  Trinity;  nos.  7, 
19,  21,  22,  31  omit  it.  The  date  is  often  left  out  and,  when  given, 
usually  appears  somewhere  in  the  text.  Only  the  charters  for 
Bayeux  (nos.  i,  2,  4)  have  a  full  dating  clause  at  the  end;  only 
these  have  a  well  developed  preamble. The  resemblances  of 
But  cf.  also  no.  26,  which  has  a  preamble  and  is  incomplete  at  the  end. 


74 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


style  in  this  group  of  charters  and  the  similarities  between  nos. 
13  and  18  for  Saint-Etienne  point  directly  to  local  authorship, 
while  in  general  the  range  of  variation  in  style  and  form  precludes 
the  existence  of  an  effective  chancery  and  indicates  that  the 
duke's  charters  were  ordinarily  drawn  up  by  the  recipients. 

This  conclusion  is  not  invahdated  by  the  occasional  mention  of 
a  ducal  chancellor  or  chaplain;  it  might  even  be  argued  that  a 
government  which  pretends  to  have  a  chancery  and  yet  makes  no 
regular  or  effective  use  of  it  is  in  a  weaker  position  than  one  which 
frankly  depends  on  others  for  its  secretarial  work.  The  charter  of 
1088  for  Mont-Saint-Michel  (no.  28),  one  of  the  most  formal  and 
regular  of  Robert's  charters,  has  at  the  end  of  the  list  of  witnesses 
*  Signum  R.  capellani  R.  comitis,'  in  the  same  hand  as  the  names 
of  eight  other  witnesses,  not  including  the  duke,  but  in  a  different 
hand  from  that  of  the  body  of  the  charter.  Apparently  this  was 
drawn  up  by  the  monks,  the  attestations  being  left  to  the  duke's 
secretary.  Unfortunately  for  purposes  of  comparison,  we  have  not 
the  originals  of  the  other  documents  in  which  this  chaplain  takes 
part.  In  one  of  these,  the  charter  for  La  Trinite  of  Caen,  1087- 
1091  (no.  19),  we  find  '  Radulfus  capellanus  de  Airi '  in  the  body 
of  the  document,  and  '  Signum  Radulfi  capellani  '  among  the 
attestations  along  with  other  officials  of  the  ducal  household.  By 
15  August  1095  in  a  charter  for  Rouen  he  has  become  '  Radulfus 
canceUarius  '  (no.  31),  a  dignity  which  he  still  holds  in  1096,  when 
he  so  attests  in  another  charter  for  Rouen  (no.  32)  and  when  Hugh 
of  Flavigny  signs  '  vice  cancellarii  Rodulfi '  ^  (no.  4).  Another 
chaplain-chancellor  is  found  at  the  same  time,  Arnulf  of  Cheques, 
ranking  below  Ralph,  since  he  appears  as  chaplain  in  the  charter 
of  1095  in  which  Ralph  is  chancellor but  called  chancellor  in 
1093  and  1094  by  a  monk  of  Bee  who  mentions  him  as  the  duke's 
messenger  and  intermediary. It  is  Amulf,  formerly  tutor  of  the 

2'  See  the  date,  above,  nots  19.  His  name  suggests  the  clerks  under  Henry  II, 
infra.  Chapter  V,  note  133. 

'  Presentibus  .  .  .  Radulpho  cancellario  meo  Ernulfo  de  Cioches  capellano 
meo'  (no.  31). 

^'  De  Ubertate  Beccensis  ecclesie,  in  Mabillon,  A nnales  (Lucca,  1 740) ,  v.  603 ;  Vita 
Willelmi  tertii  abbatis,  in  Migne,  cl.  718;  Poree,  Bee,  i.  243-245.  '  Turgisus  capel- 
lanus regis ',  who  became  bishop  of  Avranches  in  1094,  attests  no.  38  in  that  year. 


ROBERT  CURTHOSE  75 

duke's  sister  Cecily,  who  accompanies  Robert  as  chaplain  on  the 
Crusade  and  rises  to  fame  as  patriarch  of  Jerusalem.^" 

Special  interest  attaches  to  the  signature  of  Hugh  of  Flavigny 
in  the  charter  of  24  May  1096,  confirming  as  it  does  Hugh's 
chronicle  and  throwing  Hght  on  the  mission  of  Gerento,  abbot  of 
Saint-Benigne  of  Dijon,  to  England  and  Normandy.  Freeman,^^ 
it  is  true,  relates  this  episode  "  not  without  a  certain  misgiving  " 
because  of  the  silence  of  "  our  own  writers,"  especially  Eadmer; 
but  there  is  nothing  save  insular  prejudice  to  throw  doubt  on  the 
narrative  of  Hugh,  who,  having  accompanied  his  abbot  on  the 
journey,  tells  of  the  mission  to  England,  toward  the  close  of  1095, 
for  the  purpose  of  arranging  peace  between  William  Rufus  and 
Robert  and  securing  reforms  in  the  English  church,  and  of  the 
sojourn  in  Normandy  until  the  autumn  of  1096,  when  they 
journeyed  with  the  crusaders  as  far  as  Pontarlier.  There  is,  more- 
over, excellent  charter  evidence  for  Gerento's  presence  in  Nor- 
mandy in  the  interval,  for  he  arranges  and  attests  (no.  17)  an 
exchange  of  possessions  with  Gilbert,  abbot  of  Caen,  completed 
in  the  presence  of  Duke  Robert,  and  also  attests  the  duke's  char- 
ter of  1096  for  Rouen  cathedral  (no.  32),  probably  issued  at 
Rouen.  His  name  appears  here  in  company  with  that  of  Bishop 
Odo  of  Bayeux,^^  and  it  was  doubtless  during  Gerento's  visit  to 
Normandy  that  preparations  were  made  for  the  grant  of  Saint- 
Vigor  to  Saint-Benigne,  as  accomplished  by  the  charters  of  the 
bishop  and  duke  (nos.  3  and  4)  issued  at  Bayeux  24  May  1096. 
As  for  Hugh,  his  chronicle  refers  repeatedly  to  his  visit  to  Nor- 
mandy, and  specifically  to  Rouen  and  Bayeux,  where  he  spent 
some  time,^^  while  the  documents  show  him  attesting  as  '  Hugo 
capeUanus  '  the  exchange  between  the  abbeys  of  Dijon  and  Caen, 
and  subscribing  Robert's  charter  confirming  the  grant  of  Saint- 

Historiens  occidentaux  des  Croisades,  iii.  281,  302,  604,  665,  iv.  232;  Gesla 
Francorum,  ed.  Hagenmeyer,  p.  481  f . ;  Moeller, in  Melanges  Paul  Fredericq  (Brussels, 
1904),  pp.  194-196. 

'1  William  Rufus,  ii.  588  f .  See,  however,  F.  Liebermann,  Anselm  von  Canterbury 
und  Hugo  von  Lyon  (Hanover,  1886),  p.  16.  On  Hugh's  life  and  writings,  see  the 
preface  to  the  edition  of  his  Chronicle  in  M.  G.  H.,  Scriptores,  viii. 

^  On  Odo's  visit  to  Dijon,  see  the  chronicle  of  Saint-Benigne,  d'Achery,  Spicile- 
gium,  ii.  395 ;  Analecla  Divionensia,  ix.  200-202. 

"  viii.  393,  475  (general);  369,  399,  407  (Rouen);  394,  482  (Bayeux). 


76 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


Vigor  to  Saint-Benigne.  Written  in  a  more  formal  hand  than  the 
autograph  of  Hugh's  Chronicle,^*  this  ducal  charter  shows  many 
points  of  difference  from  its  Norman  contemporaries.  It  takes 
over,  it  is  true,  certain  phrases  from  Robert's  earlier  charter  for 
Saint-Vigor,  but  the  foreign  authorship  appears  in  the  penal 
clause,  the  elaborate  date,  and  the  pretentious  signature  of  Hugh, 
'  vice  cancellarii  Rodulfi,'  in  elongated  capitals.  As  Ralph  him- 
self never  claims  a  share  in  drafting  the  docimients  which  he  wit- 
nesses, this  form  of  subscription  is  simply  a  further  illustration  of 
the  preparation  of  Robert's  documents  by  the  parties  interested 
in  the  transaction  rather  than  by  his  own  officers. 

The  disintegration  of  the  chancery  is  accompanied  by  a  corre- 
sponding decline  in  the  ducal  curia.  The  lists  of  -witnesses  do  not 
show  any  great  amount  of  continuity  in  the  duke's  entourage,  still 
less  any  clearly  marked  official  element.  The  archbishop  of 
Rouen  and  the  bishops  of  Evreux,  Bayeux,  and  Lisieux  appear 
fairly  often,  those  of  Coutances  and  Seez  rarely,  the  bishop  of 
Avranches  not  at  all.  WiUiam  of  Saint-Calais,  bishop  of  Dur- 
ham, who  is  said  to  have  been  intrusted  by  Robert  with  the 
administration  of  all  Normandy attests  six  times  (nos.  1,2,7,  8, 
16,  38)  during  his  Norman  sojourns  (1089-1094),  and  his  succes- 
sor Ranulf  once  in  the  latter  part  of  the  reign  (no.  18).  Of  lay- 
men, the  most  frequent  witnesses  are  Robert,  count  of  Meulan, 
William,  count  of  Evreux,  Robert  of  Montfort,  William  of  Bre- 
teuil,  WiUiam  Bertran,  Enguerran  Fitz  Dbert,  faithful  to  Robert 
to  the  end,  when  the  men  of  Caen  drove  him  forth  in  1105,^^  and 
William  of  Arques,  a  monk  of  Moleme  whom  Ordericus  places 

See  the  facsimile,  from  the  MS.,  now  MS.  PhUlipps  142  in  Berlin,  in  Scrip- 
tores,  vui.  284;  a  modem  reproduction  would  yield  clearer  results  for  purposes  of 
comparison.  It  would  also  be  interesting  to  compare  this  charter  with  contempo- 
rary documents  for  Dijon  and  other  monasteries  with  which  Hugh  was  coimected. 
The  handwriting  of  the  exchange  with  Caen  resembles  closely  that  of  the  chronicle 
and  the  Saint-Vigor  charter;  if  not  the  work  of  Hugh,  it  must  have  been  wTitten  by 
one  of  the  other  monks  of  Dijon,  two  of  whom  sign  here  with  Hugh  and  the  abbot. 

'  A  Roberto  fratre  regis,  comite  Normannorum,  honorifice  susceptus,  totius 
Normannie  curam  suscepit ' :  De  iniusta  vexalione  Willelmi,  in  Simeon  of  Durham, 
ed.  Arnold,  i.  194.  Cf.  Simeon,  ii.  216,  where,  as  C.  W.  David  has  shown  (£.  H.  R., 
xxxii.  384),  this  statement  is  carried  over  to  Odo  of  Bayeux. 
'*  Ordericus,  iv.  219. 


ROBERT  CURTHOSE 


77 


among  the  chief  counselors  of  Robert's  earlier  years  as  duke.^^ 
Of  household  officials  we  have  only  the  merest  mention  of  Roger 
of  Ivry,  butler  of  the  Conqueror  and  still  bearing  this  title  in  1089 
(no.  i);  William  (of  Tancarville)  the  chamberlain  (nos.  2,  18,  ig); 
Roger  Mau-Couronne  'dispensator'  (no.  19)  Simon  'dapifer' 
(no.  7);  and  Turold  '  hostiarius  '  (no.  19).  The  bare  mention  of 
one  or  two  vicomtes  ^°  is  the  only  evidence  of  the  persistence  of  the 
local  administration,  while  respecting  the  fiscal  system  the  sources 
are  entirely  silent.*^  Once,  and  once  only,  do  the  charters  mention 
a  meeting  of  the  ducal  curia,  namely  in  a  narration  of  the  demeles 
of  the  abbot  of  Lonlai  and  the  monks  of  Saint-Florent,  Saumur, 
respecting  the  priory  of  Briouze.^-  A  term  was  fixed  at  the  duke's 
court  at  Bonneville-sur-Touques  toward  the  close  of  December 
1093,  and  on  the  appointed  day  Robert  ordered  his  bishops  and 
nobles  to  do  right  in  the  case.  Upon  the  abbot  of  Lonlai  and  his 
monks  making  default,  the  duke  sent  a  mandate  of  protection 
under  seal  to  the  bishop  of  Seez,  in  whose  diocese  the  priory  lay, 
and  through  him  also  ordered  the  abbot  to  respect  the  rights  of  the 
monks  of  Saint-Florent.  If  the  original  documents  in  this  suit  had 
been  preserved,  they  would  supply  one  of  the  noteworthy  gaps  in 
the  documentary  materials  of  the  reign,  the  absence  of  any  writs 
or  mandata,  whether  executive  or  judicial.  The  mention  of  some- 
thing of  the  sort  in  this  instance  saves  us  from  the  hasty  inference 
that  nothing  of  the  kind  then  existed,  an  argument  from  silence 
which  could  in  any  event  hardly  be  justified  in  view  of  the 
chances  against  the  preservation  of  these  smaller  and  more  fugi- 
tive bits  of  parchment.  Nevertheless,  it  cannot  be  without  signi- 

"  Ordericus,  iii.  322,  354.  Cf.  Delisle's  note  in  Annuaire-Bulletin,  1886,  p.  182; 
Bulletin  de  la  Sociele  d'histoire  de  Normandie,  x.  5. 

Roger  de  Lassi,  '  magister  militum,'  is  known  to  us  from  Ordericus,  iii.  411, 
iv.  180.  Cf.  Sauvage,  Troarn,  p.  88  f. 

Cf.  Round,  nos.  424,  666;  supra,  p.  63. 

*"  Nos.  I,  28.  Note,  however,  no.  13  and  the  survival  of  bernagium,  infra,  p.  82. 

*^  Sauvage  has  suggested  {Troarn,  p.  226,  note)  that  the  mortgage  of  the  duchy 
to  William  Rufus  for  five  years  for  10,000  marks  may  serve  as  a  basis  for  estimat- 
ing the  annual  revenue  in  this  period.  There  is,  however,  disagreement  as  to  the 
term  of  the  pledge;  see  below,  note  50. 

"  No.  36.  Cf .  the  condemnation  to  debilitatio  membrorum  by  the  curia  in  Orderi- 
cus, iii.  297. 


78 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


ficance  that  documents  of  this  type  have  come  down  to  us  from 
the  Norman  administration  of  William  Rufus  and  Henry  I;  and 
the  least  that  can  be  said  is  that  the  administrative  weakness  of 
Robert's  reign  cannot  produce  on  its  behalf  this  most  convincing 
evidence  of  the  normal  vigor  and  precision  of  Anglo-Norman 
government. 

A  survey  of  the  government  of  Normandy  under  Robert  Curt- 
hose  must  also  take  account  of  the  rule  of  WilUam  Rufus,  from 
1 09 1  to  1096  in  possession  of  the  eastern  portion  of  the  duchy  and 
at  times  cooperating  with  Robert  elsewhere,  from  1096  to  11 00 
sole  ruler  during  Robert's  absence.  Crossing  early  in  1091,^^  the 
Red  King  quickly  established  himself  in  the  lands  east  of  the 
Seine,  where  several  of  the  leading  barons  had  already  espoused 
his  cause,  and  he  soon  compelled  Robert  to  sign  a  treaty  relin- 
quishing to  him  the  counties  of  Eu  and  Aumale,  the  possessions  of 
the  lords  of  Goumay  and  Conches,  the  abbey  of  Fecamp,  and, 
apparently,  at  the  other  extremity  of  the  duchy,  Cherbourg  and 
the  abbey  of  Mont-Saint-Michel,  then  in  the  hands  of  his  brother 
Henry.**  Until  William's  return  to  England  in  August  of  this 
year  he  and  Robert  seem  to  have  exercised  a  kind  of  joint  rule  in 
Normandy.  They  conduct  a  joint  expedition  against  Henry, 
whom  they  besiege  in  the  Mount,**  they  appear  together  in  a  con- 
firmation for  Saint-Etienne  of  Caen  issued  probably  at  this  time,*^ 
and  they  unite,  18  July,  in  holding  the  inquest  concerning  their 
rights  and  privileges  which  formulated  the  Consuettidines  et 

^'  Ordericus  (iii.  365,  377)  places  the  crossing  in  the  week  of  23  January;  Flor- 
ence of  Worcester  (ii.  27)  gives  February;  the  Anglo-Saxon  Chro7iicle,  Candlemas. 
In  any  case  it  was  subsequent  to  27  January',  when  William  was  at  Dover  (Davis, 
Regesla,  no.  315). 

^  On  the  provisions  of  this  agreement,  see  Freeman,  WilUam  Rufus,  i.  275,  ii. 
522-528,  who  caUs  it  the  '  Treaty  of  Caen  '  on  the  basis  of  a  statement  by  Robert 
of  Torigni  (William  of  Jumieges,  ed.  Marx,  p.  270)  that  it  was  concluded  there. 
Ordericus,  however,  places  it  at  Rouen,  which  is  geographically  more  probable; 
Robert  of  Torigni  may  have  confused  this  with  the  Caen  inquest  of  July.  In  any 
case  the  brothers  came  to  terms  quickly,  for  the  siege  of  Henry  in  Mont-Saint- 
Michel  began  at  Mid-Lent  (Ordericus,  iii.  378).  In  the  enumeration  of  lands 
granted  Cherbourg  is  mentioned  only  by  the  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle,  and  Florence 
of  Worcester,  who  adds  Mont-Saint-Michel. 

"  Freeman,  i.  284-293,  ii.  528-535.  **  Supra,  no.  15. 


ROBERT  CURTHOSE 


79 


iusticie."  The  harmony  of  all  three  brothers  is  shown  later  in  the 
same  year  by  the  attestation  of  Robert  and  Henry  to  a  charter  of 
the  Red  King  for  Durham.*^  This  state  of  affairs  was,  however, 
of  short  duration.  Robert  formally  accused  William  of  violating 
the  agreement  of  1091,  and  its  sworn  guarantors  supported  the 
charge.  No  reconciliation  could  be  reached,  and  in  1094  William 
conducted  hostile  operations  in  Normandy  from  March  until  the 
end  of  December.  Then,  as  before,  his  base  lay  in  the  region  east 
of  the  Seine,  but  the  history  of  the  year  is  confused  and  tells  us 
nothing  of  civil  affairs.^'  The  reconciliation  of  the  two  brothers 
was  a  special  object  of  the  mission  of  the  Abbot  Gerento  of  Dijon 
in  the  winter  of  1095-1096;  the  agreement  handed  over  the  duchy 
to  William  in  pledge  for  the  ten  thousand  marks  which  he  ad- 
vanced to  Robert  for  the  expenses  of  his  crusade.  The  terms  of 
the  transaction  are  known  only  through  the  chroniclers,  who 
differ  as  to  the  period.  Eadmer  and  Hugh  of  Flavigny  give  three 
years,  Ordericus  has  five,  while  Robert  of  Torigni  says  William 
was  to  have  Normandy  until  Robert's  return  and  the  repayment 
of  the  money. 

William  Rufus  entered  into  possession  of  Normandy  in  Septem- 
ber 1096.^^  It  is  not  clear  whether  he  arrived  before  the  crusaders 
had  started ;  at  least  there  is  no  evidence  of  a  conference  between 
the  brothers  on  this  occasion.     Of  the  four  years  of  rule  which 

Appendix  D. 

Davis,  Regesla,  no.  318;  W.  Farrers,  Early  Yorkshire  Charters,  no.  928. 

Freeman,  i.  460-470;  Fliche,  Le  regne  de  Philippe  I",  pp.  298-301,  who 
seeks  to  explain  away  the  siege  of  Eu  in  this  year  on  the  ground  of  confusion  with 
the  campaign  of  109 1.  The  English  chroniclers,  however,  are  quite  specific  on  this 
point.  A  precept  of  WiUiam  Rufus  to  Bishop  Robert  of  Lincoln  dated  at  Eu  belongs 
to  this  year  or  later:  Davis,  no.  350. 

See  the  passages  collected  in  Freeman,  i.  555. 
'1  Ordericus,  iv.  16.  Cf.  Davis,  no.  377,  the  date  of  which  is  given  as  follows  in 
the  Winchester  cartulary  (Add.  MS.  29436,  f .  1 2) :  '  Hec  confirmatio  facta  est 
apud  Hastinges  anno  dominice  incamationis  M°.XCVI°  quando  perrexi  Nor- 
manniam  pro  concordia  fratris  mei  Roberti  euntis  lerusalem.' 

There  is  no  reason  for  placing  in  this  year  the  letter  of  Ives  of  Chartres  {Ep. 
28)  upon  which  Freeman  relies  (i.  559)  to  prove  that  a  conference  was  held  under 
the  auspices  of  the  French  king;  Fliche,  p.  299,  places  it  in  1094.  Apparently  the 
Norman  crusaders  started  after  9  September  (Delisle,  Litieralure  laline  el  hisloire 
du  tnoyen  age,  Paris,  1890,  p.  28)  but  before  the  end  of  the  month  (Ordericus,  iii. 
483). 


8o 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


remained  to  the  Red  King,  the  greater  portion  was  spent  in  Nor- 
mandy, but  they  were  years  of  war,  in  Maine  and  on  the  perennial 
battle-ground  of  the  Vexin,*^  and  we  hear  little  of  the  state  of  the 
duchy  under  him.  Ordericus  tells  us  that  the  new  master  re- 
covered portions  of  the  ducal  domain  which  Robert  had  given 
away,  and  that  he  exercised  to  the  full  his  ecclesiastical  suprem- 
acy, but  that  under  his  iron  heel  Normandy  at  least  enjoyed  a 
brief  period  of  order  and  rigorous  justice  to  which  it  looked  back 
with  longing  after  Robert's  return.^ 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  documentary  sources  of  these  years 
should  be  meager;  the  remarkable  thing  is  that,  few  as  they  are, 
the  Norman  charters  of  WilHam  Rufus  tell  us  more  of  the  work- 
ings of  administration  than  do  the  more  numerous  acts  of  Robert 
Curthose.  We  may  begin  by  eliminating  the  documents  issued  in 
England  or  at  unknown  places  for  the  English  lands  of  Norman 
rehgious  establishments,  but  for  convenience  we  may  include  three 
or  four  other  charters  which  probably  belong  to  the  period  before 
1096.  There  results  the  following  list  of  documents  issued  in  or 
concerning  Normandy,^^  which  are  here  numbered  with  Roman 
numerals  in  order  to  avoid  confusion  with  the  preceding  catalogue 
of  acts  of  Robert: 

I.  Bec.  At  Rouen.  Release  of  Surcy  (Eure)  from  bcrnagium.  Davis, 
Regesta,  nos.  425,  Lxxiii;  printed  below,  p.  82. 

II.  Caen,  Saint-Etienne  [probably  in  1091].  Confirms  exchange  with 
William  de  Tornebu.    Supra  imder  Robert,  no.  15. 

"  On  these  campaigns,  see  Freeman,  ii.  165-256,  274-296;  Fliche,  pp.  301-305; 
R.  Latouche,  Histoire  du  comte  du  Maine  pendant  le  et  le  XI"  Steele  (Paris,  1910), 
PP-  45-51- 

"  iv.  i6-ig,  98.  A  returning  crusader,  Wigo  de  Marra,  makes  a  grant  to  Saint- 
Julien  of  Tours  in  1099, '  regnante  Willelmo  rege  Anglorum  et  duce  Normannorum,' 
and  agrees  'si  possum  volente  domino  Normannie  conficere  et  congregare  feriam, 
quod  ipsi  monachi  habebunt  totius  ferie  omnium  renim  decimam.'  This  is  the 
latest  recognition  of  William's  dominion  that  I  have  found:  Denis,  Charles  de  S.- 
Julien  de  Tours,  no.  51. 

I  have  not  included  the  following  writ  for  Montebourg,  which  may  be  of 
William  I  or  II :  '  WiUehnus  rex  Anglorum  omnibus  suis  ministris  tocius  Normannie 
salutem.  Precipio  vobis  ut  res  Sancte  Marie  de  Monteborc  quiete  sint  ab  omni 
consuetudine  et  sine  theloneo  transeant  quocunque  venerint.'  MS.  Lat.  10087, 
no.  6.  The  chapter  of  Chartres  addressed  a  letter  of  congratulation  to  the  Red 
King  at  his  accession  {B.  E.  C,  xvi.  453),  but  he  does  not  appear  in  the  list  of  its 
royal  benefactors  (£.  H.  R.,  xvi.  498). 


ROBERT  CURTHOSE 


8l 


III.  Caen,  Sai'nt-fitienne  [in  England,  1096-1097].  Grant  of  Creech  in  ex- 
change for  his  father's  crown  and  regaha,  and  general  confirmation.  Vidimus 
of  1424,  in  Neustria  Pia,  p.  638;  La  Roque,  iv.  1334;  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1428, 
f.  4.    Davis,  no.  397;  cf.  Delisle-Berger,  i.  263,  note. 

IV.  DuEflAM.  At  Pont  de  I'Arche  [1096-1100].  Writ  of  freedom  from 
gelds.    Davis,  nos.  480,  xci. 

V.  Fecamp.  [1094-1099.]  Notice  of  suit  between  Fecamp  and  Saint- 
Florent.    Davis,  nos.  423,  Ixxiv. 

VI.  Fecamp.  Writ  to  justiciars  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  notice. 
Davis,  nos.  424,  Ixxiv. 

VII.  Fecamp.  At  Lillebonne  [1099].  Writ  issued  in  pursuance  of  the  same 
judgment  to  Ranulf  of  Durham  and  others.  Original  in  Archives  of  the  Seine- 
Inferieure;  copy  in  MS.  Rouen  1207,  f.  16;  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  2412,  no.  46. 
Edited  by  me  from  the  original,  E.  H.  R.  xxvii.  103.  Rovmd,  no.  119,  where 
it  is  wrongly  given  as  of  Henry  I;  Davis,  no.  416. 

VIII.  Le  Mans  cathedral.  At  Saint-Sever  (Emendreville)  [1096-1099]. 
Writ  confirming  grants  of  his  father.  Liher  albus,  no.  2;  Davis,  no.  440. 

IX.  Lincoln.  At  Pont  de  I'Arche  [1094-1100].  Confirming  grant  in  Bin- 
brook.    Davis,  no.  473. 

X.  Longueville.  Grant  at  Bosc-Lehard  (Seine-Inferieure).  Mentioned 
in  confirmations  of  Henry  I  and  Henry  II  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure ; 
Roimd,  nos.  219,  225.  For  the  charters  of  Henry  II  see  Chevreux  and 
Vernier,  Les  archives  de  Normandie  et  de  la  Seine-Inferieure,  plate  13 ;  De- 
lisle-Berger, nos.  7,  768. 

XI.  Saint- EvROUL.  At  Windsor,  late  in  1091.  General  confirmation. 
Mentioned  by  Ordericus,  iii.  381,  cf.  41. 

XII.  Saumtjr,  Saint-Florent.  1092.  Confirms  his  father's  grant  of  Ceaux. 
Davis,  no.  158. 

XIII.  Stow.  At  Eu,  perhaps  in  1094.  Writ  to  bishop  of  Lincoln.  Davis, 
no.  350. 

XIV.  Thorney.  At  Rosay^^  [1094-1099].  Writ  to  bishop  of  Lincoln  and 
others  respecting  the  abbey's  assessment.  Davis,  nos.  422,  Ixxii. 

XV.  Troarn.  Confirms  the  abbey's  possessions  in  Normandy  and  Eng- 
land as  granted  by  his  father.  Sauvage,  Troarn,  p.  363.^' 

There  are  two  places  of  this  name  in  the  department  of  the  Seine-Inferieure, 
one  in  canton  Bellencombre,  the  other  in  canton  Menerval.  The  compiler  of  the 
index  to  Davis  unaccountably  identifies  Roseium  with  Rozoy-en-Brie,  far  out  of 
William's  territory;  cf.  Round,  in  E.  H.  R.,  xxix.  349. 

^'  There  are  also  two  spurious  documents  of  this  reign.  One,  dated  in  1089  but 
written  in  a  later  style,  recites  that  '  tres  regis  Willelmi  pinceme  nomine  Gerardus 
Radulfus  Malgerius  '  have  granted  '  Deo  et  Petro  et  S.  Audoeno  infra  Chatomen- 
sium  fines  terram  quandam '  (cartulary  of  Saint-Ouen  in  Archives  of  the  Seine- 
Inferieure,  no.  286/5,  p.  277,  no.  340).  The  other  (cf.  E.  H.  R.,  xxiv.  213,  note  16), 
quite  possibly  meant  for  WUliam's  father,  is  a  general  charter  for  the  abbey  of 
Montebourg,  for  which  the  substance  and  most  of  the  witnesses  have  been  bor- 
rowed from  a  charter  of  Henry  I  which  is  printed  in  DeUsle,  Cariulaire  normand, 
no.  737.  The  false  charter  {Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  229;  Neustria  Pia,  p.  672) 


82 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


It  is  clear,  first  of  all,  that  William  Rufus  brought  with  him-  to 
Normandy  his  chancellor,  William  Giffard,^*  who  attests  charters 
at  Rouen  (no.  i),  Pont  de  I'Arche  (no.  iv),  Saint-Sever  (Emendre- 
ville,  no.  viii),  Eu  (no.  xiii),  and  Rosay  (no.  xiv),  and  who  had 
sufficient  association  with  Rouen  cathedral  to  lead  the  canons  to 
secure  from  him  later  a  formal  declaration  that  no  chancellor  or 
chaplain  had  any  rights  in  its  choir.  With  the  English  chan- 
cellor naturally  came  the  writ.  There  are  seven  writs,  a  goodly 
number  under  the  circumstances,  and  one  (no.  vii)  is  preserved  in 
the  original.  Five  are  addressed  to  the  king's  officers  in  England 
(nos.  iv,  vi,  vii,  xiii,  xiv),  one  to  officers  in  Maine  (no.  viii),^°  and 
one  to  officers  in  Normandy  (no.  i).  The  Norman  writ  runs  as 
follows : 

Willermus  rex  Anglorum  F.  veltrario  et  Isenbardo  bernario  et  omnibus 
servientibus  banc  consuetudinem  requirentibus  salutem.  Sciatis  quia  clamo 
terram  Sancte  Marie  de  Surceio  omnino  quietam  de  bernagio  donee  ego 
inquiram  quomodo  fuit  tempore  patris  mei.  Teste  Willelmo  cancellario  apud 
Rothomagum.^^ 

Here  we  have  a  document  parallel  in  every  way  to  its  EngUsh  con- 
temporaries in  its  sharp,  crisp  form  and  in  its  assumption  of  regu- 
lar execution  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  question  is  a  purely 
Norman  one,  the  ancient  contribution  to  the  maintenance  of  the 
duke's  hunting  dogs,''^  and  the  officers  addressed  show  by  their 
titles  that  they  are  concerned  with  this  branch  of  the  ducal 

is  not  found  in  the  Montebourg  cartulary  (MS.  Lat.  10087)  but  appears  in  the 
Livre  blanc,  Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  8391,  f.  i;  in  the  cartulary  of  Loders,  Add. 
MS.  15605,  f.  20V,  from  a  vidimus  of  Philip  III;  and  in  Archives  of  the  Manche, 
H.  8409;  MS.  Lat.  12885,  160;  MS.  Fr.  5200,  f.  107;  and  MS.  Grenoble  1395, 
f.3. 

'8  On  whom  see  Davis,  in  E.  H.  R.,  xxvi.  86. 

MS.  Rouen  1193,  fif.  49,  141V;  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieiure,  G.  3623; 
printed  in  Valin,  p.  258,  no.  3;  Round,  no.  4. 

Robert  Doisnel,  one  of  the  officers  here  addressed,  appears  later  in  a  charter 
of  Robert  Curthose  (no.  18). 

The  text  has  '  brevario,'  clearly  a  copjist's  error  for  '  bernario.'  Cf.  Round, 
in  E.  H.  R.,  xxix.  354;  and  on  the  bemer  and  the  velterer,  his  King's  Serjeants, 
p.  271  f. 

^  Fragment  of  Bee  cartulary  in  Archives  of  the  Eure,  H.  91,  f.  39V.  Indicated 
in  A.  H.  R.,  xiv.  464,  note  69;  printed  in  Valin,  p.  200,  note  2.  Bemagium  is  also 
mentioned  under  Robert  (no.  31). 

^  Supra,  Chapter  I,  note  164. 


ROBERT  CURTHOSE 


83 


administration;  but  the  single  example  suffices  to  show  the  reg- 
ular mechanism  of  Anglo-Norman  administration  at  work.  It 
should  be  noted  that  the  norm  taken  for  inquiry  is  the  practice  of 
the  Conqueror's  time,  not  of  Robert's;  and  it  is  probable  that  the 
method  to  be  employed  by  the  king  was  the  sworn  inquest.^'' 
Other  Norman  writs  would  be  more  than  welcome  as  illustrating 
procedure,  especially  in  judicial  matters,  but  so  far  as  the  general 
character  of  the  goverrmient  is  concerned  their  value  would  be 
essentially  confirmatory.  In  such  3.  C3-SC  3.  single  instance  estab- 
lishes the  whole.  Moreover,  in  respect  to  the  duke's  justice 
another  set  of  documents  bears  witness  to  the  workings  of  the 
curia  in  this  period  and  enables  us  to  follow  the  course  of  a  suit 
much  as  in  the  Conqueror's  time.  The  monks  of  Saint-Florent 
and  those  of  Fecamp  have  a  dispute  respecting  their  rights  at 
Steyning  and  Seeding,  in  Sussex,  which  they  bring  before  the 
court  of  William  the  Younger  at  Foucarmont.  Five  act  as  judges 
on  the  king's  part,  Robert  of  Meulan,  Eudo  the  seneschal,  Wil- 
liam the  chancellor,  William  Werelwast,  the  king's  chaplain,  and 
William  Fitz  Ogier.  When  the  decision  has  been  reached,  the  king 
sends  sealed  letters  on  behalf  of  the  abbey  of  Fecamp  to  his  justi- 
ciars in  England,  supplemented  by  a  later  writ  which  has  reached 
us  in  the  original  (nos.  v-vii).  Evidently  royal  justice  ran  the 
same  course  wherever  the  king  was;  Normandy  and  England 
were  a  part  of  the  same  system. 

These  faint  glimpses  of  the  government  of  Normandy  under 
William  Rufus  are  all  that  we  have  to  bridge  the  gap  between  the 
Conqueror  and  Henry  I.  They  show  us  what  happened  when,  as 
again  under  Henry  I,  Normandy  was  subject  to  the  ruler  of  Eng- 
land and  could  be  treated  as  part  of  the  same  organization;  and 
if  we  knew  nothing  of  the  independent  history  of  Norman  institu- 
tions, we  might  be  led  to  suppose  that  they  had  no  vitahty  of  their 
own  and  were  in  some  degree  a  reflection  of  the  larger  state  across 
the  Channel.  We  have  seen,  however,  the  strength  and  vigor  of 
the  Norman  system  before  the  Conquest  of  1066,  and  we  shall  see 
under  Henry  I  the  survival  of  the  institutions  of  the  Conqueror's 
time,  which  was  the  standard  to  which  all  matters  were  then  re- 
Valin,  p.  200;  infra,  Chapter  VI,  note  103. 


84 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


ferred.  When  we  find  the  Exchequer  of  Henry  I  and  Henry  II 
carefully  keeping  up  the  fiscal  arrangements  of  the  Conqueror,  we 
get  some  measure  of  the  persistence  of  the  ancient  organization  in 
Normandy,  and  we  are  justified  in  inferring  that,  in  local  matters 
at  least,  it  was  in  some  measure  maintained  even  during  the 
disorder  and  weakness  of  Robert's  reign. 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  NORMANDY  UNDER 
HENRY  V 

The  reign  of  Henry  I,  which  Round  has  declared  perhaps  the  most 
tantalizing  in  English  history,  is  equally  tantalizing  to  the  stu- 
dent of  the  history  and  institutions  of  Normandy,  where  the 
paucity  of  documents  is  even  greater  than  in  England  for  the  same 
period.  There  is  nothing  in  Normandy  which  corresponds  to  the 
Pipe  Roll  of  1 130;  the  only  local  survey  is  the  Bayeux  inquest  of 
1 133,  examined  above  as  a  source  for  the  feudal  conditions  of  the 
eleventh  century;  ^  the  only  piece  of  legislation  is  the  ordinance  of 
1 135  which  divides  between  the  king  and  the  bishops  the  fines  for 
violating  the  Truce  of  God ; '  the  destruction  of  the  records  of 
cathedrals  and  religious  houses  has  been  far  greater  than  in  Eng- 
land. Nevertheless  the  number  of  charters  issued  in  Normandy  or 
for  Norman  beneficiaries  is  still  considerable  and  quite  exceeds  the 
possibility  of  such  a  catalogue  as  has  been  attempted  for  the 
scanty  documentary  remains  of  Robert  Curthose  and  Geoffrey 
Plantagenet.*  Until  the  Regesta  of  Davis  shall  have  created  a 
documentary  and  chronological  basis  for  the  study  of  this  reign  in 
England,  it  is  premature  to  undertake  a  systematic  treatment  of 
its  annals  in  Normandy.^  For  the  present  we  must  content  our- 
selves with  an  exploration  of  the  significant  points  in  the  admin- 
istrative system,  having  regard  on  the  one  hand  to  the  restoration 
of  stable  government  after  the  overthrow  of  Robert,  and  on  the 
other  to  such  institutions  of  later  Normandy  as  can  be  traced 
back  to  Henry's  reign.  Parallels  and  connections  with  England 
will  inevitably  suggest  themselves. 

*  Revised  and  expanded  from  E.  H.  R.,  xxiv.  209-231  (1909). 

*  Supra,  Chapter  I. 

'  Tres  Ancien  Cotitiimier,  ed.  Tardif,  c.  71;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  290. 

*  See  Chapters  II  and  IV. 

^  See,  however,  the  contributions  to  Henry's  Norman  itinerary  in  Appendix  G. 

8s 


86 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


When  the  victory  of  Tinchebrai,  28  September  1106,  gave 
Henry  complete  control  of  the  duchy,  it  found  him  already  estab- 
lished at  Bayeux,  Caen,  and  Evreux.®  Proceeding  to  Rouen,  he 
renewed  his  father's  privileges  to  the  city:  paternas  leges  renovavit 
pristinasque  urhis  dignitates  restituit,  phrases  which  also  point  to 
a  general  restoration  of  the  Conqueror's  system  of  government 
throughout  the  duchy  J  Such  was  also  the  purpose  of  a  council  of 
barons  and  clergy  held  in  mid-October  at  Lisieux,  where,  accord- 
ing to  Ordericus,^  Henry  revoked  all  Robert's  grants  from  the 
ducal  domain  and  restored  the  possessions  of  the  church  as  they 
had  stood  at  the  time  of  his  father's  death.  General  peace  was 
reestablished  by  the  repression  of  acts  of  robbery  and  violence, 
and  we  are  told  that  special  penalties  were  enacted  against  rape 
and  counterfeiting.'  The  destruction  of  adulterine  castles  was 
also  systematically  begtm.^"  Assemblies  were  held  at  Falaise  in 
January  and  at  Lisieux  in  March  of  1107,  but  no  record  of  their 
legislation  has  reached  us,"  and  by  Easter  Henry  was  back  in 

^  Besides  the  narratives  of  the  events  of  1 105-1 106  to  be  found  in  the  chroniclers 
—  Ordericus,  Henry  of  Huntingdon,  the  Peterborough  chronicle,  Florence  of  Wor- 
cester, William  of  Malmesbury,  and  Wace,  who  preserves  certain  local  details  — 
there  are  three  contemporary  pieces  of  importance:  (i)  Serlo,  De  capla  Baiocensi 
civitate,  H.  F.,  xix,  p.  xci;  Wright,  Anglo-Latin  Poets,  ii.  241;  see  Bohmer,  Serlo 
von  Bayeux,  in  Neues  Archiv,  xxii.  701-738.  (2)  Henry's  letter  to  Ansehn  after 
Tinchebrai,  in  Eadmer,  Historia  Novonm,  p.  184.  (3)  The  accoimt  of  this  battle 
by  a  priest  of  Fecamp,  first  printed  by  Delisle,  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  129;  reprinted, 
E.  B.  R.,  xxiv.  728,  and,  more  correctly,  xxv.  295. 

'  Ordericus,  iv.  233;  cf.  Tardif,  Ettide  sur  les  sources,  i.  45.  That  paternas  leges 
applies  to  the  whole  duchy  is  clear  from  the  repetition  of  the  phrase  in  the  speech 
which  Ordericus  puts  in  Henrj^'s  mouth  in  11 19  (iv.  402).  Cf.  the  use  of  laga 
Edwardi  in  England. 

8  iv.  233. 

'  According  to  a  statement  of  uncertain  origin  in  Bessin,  Concilia,  i.  79;  cf.  Le 
Prevost's  note  to  Ordericus,  iv.  233 ;  Tardif,  Elude,  p.  46.  The  penalties  are  similar 
to  those  proclaimed  in  England  in  11 08  and  enforced  severely  in  11 25:  Florence  of 
Worcester,  ii.  57,  79;  William  of  Malmesbury,  Gesta  Regum,  p.  476;  Eadmer, 
Historia  Novorum,  p.  193;  Henry  of  Himtingdon,  p.  246;  Simeon  of  Durham,  ii. 
281;  Robert  of  Torigni,  in  William  of  Jumieges,  ed.  Marx,  p.  297;  Suger,  Louis  le 
Gros,  ed.  Molinier,  p.  47.  In  a  charter  issued  at  Easter  1108  Henry  describes  this 
EngUsh  legislation  as  '  nova  statuta  mea  de  iudiciis  sive  de  placitis  latronum  et 
falsorum  monetariorum ':  Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls,  1338-1340,  p.  166;  Historians 
of  the  Church  of  York,  iii.  22. 

Ordericus,  iv.  236;  Suger,  p.  47.  "  Ordericus,  iv.  239,  269. 


HENRY  I 


87 


England. Ordericus  tells  us,  under  this  same  year,  that  the 
magistratus  populi  were  often  called  to  the  curia  and  admonished 
to  conform  themselves  to  the  new  conditions  of  peace  and  stricter 
responsibility."  The  only  meeting  of  the  curia  of  which  we  have 
formal  record  at  this  time  was  held  at  Rouen,  7  November  1106, 
in  the  archbishop's  camera,  to  decide  a  dispute  between  the 
monasteries  of  Fecamp  and  Saint-Taurin  of  Evreux,  which  had 
been  subjected  to  Fecamp  by  charter  of  Robert  the  Magnificent; 
the  decision  was  given  by  the  '  counsel  and  judgment  of  the 
bishops,  abbots,  and  barons,'  among  whom  appear  the  archbishop 
of  Rouen,  the  bishops  of  Bayeux,  Evreux,  Winchester,  and  Dur- 
ham, the  abbots  of  Saint-Ouen,  La  Trinite,  Jumieges,  and  Troam, 
the  archdeacons  of  Rouen  and  Evreux,  Robert  de  Meulan, 
Richard  de  Revers,  William  d'Aubigny,  and  the  king's  chancellor 
Waldric.^^  Another  suit  of  this  same  winter  was  decided  in  favor 
of  the  abbey  of  Bee  in  the  presence  of  the  archbishop  and  the 
bishops  and  barons  of  Normandy,  the  charter  which  records  the 
result  being  approved  by  King  Henry,  the  bishops  of  Bayeux  and 
Avranches,  Robert  of  Belleme,  Robert  of  Meulan,  Eustace  of 
Boulogne,  Henry,  count  of  Eu,  and  the  archdeacons  of  Rouen. 

What  means  were  provided  for  maintaining  the  government 
during  the  king's  absence  is  a  question  which  we  cannot  answer 
from  the  chroniclers,  who  are  quite  fragmentary  on  events  in  Nor- 
mandy between  1107  and  1112.  The  charters,  however,  tell  us 
before  1 108  of  ducal  justices  in  the  Cotentin,  and  before  1 109  of  a 
chief  justiciar;  and,  as  we  shall  see,  the  curia  meets  to  decide  an 
important  case  in  the  king's  absence  in  1 1 1 1  .^^  It  can  hardly  be  an 
accident  that  before  his  departure  in  1107  Henry  gave  the  see  of 
Lisieux  to  John,  who  appears  at  the  head  of  the  Norman  curia  in 

^  Henry  of  Hxintingdon,  p.  236. 
iv.  269. 

"  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  127;  a  fuller  list  of  witnesses  in  Collection  Moreau, 
xlii.  88.  Henry's  presence  at  Rouen  is  also  attested  for  30  November  of  this  year 
by  a  charter  witnessed  by  his  chancellor  Waldric  {Calendar  of  Charter  Rolls,  v.  56, 
no.  7;  Monaslicon,  iii.  384),  who  was  about  this  time  sought  out  at  Rouen  by  the 
canons  of  Laon:  Davis,  in  E.  H.  R.,  xxvi.  88. 

1*  Appendix  F,  no.  i. 

See  the  charters  for  Montebourg,  Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive,  and  Jumieges  cited 
below,  p.  93  f. 


88 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


the  later  years  of  the  reign,  and  who  had  already  served  a  long 
apprenticeship  as  judge  in  ecclesiastical  causes  in  Normandy  and 
as  one  of  Henry's  principal  chaplains  in  England. It  is  probable 
that  Bishop  John  was,  if  not  the  head,  at  least  an  important  mem- 
ber of  the  government  of  the  duchy  in  these  early  years;  but  there 
is  no  definite  evidence  for  this  period,  and  little  enough  for  any 
period,  and  we  are  compelled  to  study  the  administration  of 
Normandy  topically  rather  than  chronologically  throughout  the 
reign.  Only  toward  the  end  do  the  long  sojourns  of  Henry  on  the 
Norman  side  of  the  Channel  and  a  somewhat  greater  variety  of 
evidence  give  us  a  rather  more  connected  view. 

The  starting-point  for  any  study  of  the  government  of  Nor- 
mandy under  Henry  I  is  the  plea,  published  by  Round  in  1899, 
which  established  for  the  first  time  the  existence  of  the  Norman 
Exchequer  eo  nomine  in  this  reign.'*  In  this  document  the  great 

1'  Ordericus,  iv.  273-275 :  '  A  prefatis  itaque  magistris,  quia  ratione  et  eloquentia 
satis  enituit,  ad  archidiaconatus  officium  promotus,  ad  examen  rectitudinis  iure 
proferendum  inter  primes  resedit  et  ecclesiastica  negotia  rationabiliter  diu 
disseruit.'  Driven  out  of  the  archdeaconry  of  Seez  by  Robert  of  Belleme  he  fled 
to  England,  where  '  inter  precipuos  regis  capellanos  computatus  est,  atque  ad 
regalia  inter  familiares  consilia  sepe  accitus  est.'  Note  that  Bishop  John  was  not 
only  a  contemporary  of  Ordericus  but  also  his  diocesan. 

1*  '  Isti  sunt  homines  qui  fuerunt  [presentes]  ubi  Bemardus  disrationavit  versus 
Serlonem  surdum  virgultum  et  terram  iuxta  virgultum  de  Maton  ad  domLnium 
suum,  scilicet  Robertus  de  Curci  dapifer  et  Willelmus  filius  Odonis  et  Henricus  de 
Pomerai  et  WiUelmus  Glastonie  et  Wiganus  MarescaUus  et  Robertus  capellanus 
episcopi  Luxoviensis  et  Robertus  Ebroicensis  et  Martin  scriba  de  capella.  Et  ibi 
positus  fuit  Serlo  in  misericordia  regis  per  iudicium  baronum  de  scaccario  quia 
excoluerat  terram  Ulam  super  saisinam  Bemardi,  quam  ante  placitum  istud  dis- 
racionaverat  per  iudicium  episcopi  Luxoviensis  et  Roberti  de  Haia  et  multorum 
aliorum  ad  scaccarium.  Et  hoc  idem  testificati  fuerunt  per  brevia  sua  ad  hoc 
placitum  ubi  non  interfuerunt  quia  ambo  tunc  infirmi  fuerunt.  Et  cum  Serlone 
fuerunt  ibi  Ricardus  frater  suus  et  [hlanh]  qui  hoc  viderunt  et  audierunt  et  per  de- 
precationem  Bemardi  Serlo  admensuratus  fuit  de  misericordia  regis  ad  x  solidos.' 
E.  H.  R.,  xiv.  426. 

Valin,  pp.  125-132,  labors  hard  to  explain  away  this  document,  which  upsets  his 
whole  theory  of  the  origin  and  functions  of  the  Exchequer,  on  the  groimd  that  it 
was  drawn  up,  probably  later,  by  a  canon  of  Merton  who  introduced  English 
terminology.  Taken  apart  from  any  preconceived  theory,  however,  it  is  strictly 
parallel  to  the  other  notices  concerning  the  lands  of  Bernard  the  scribe  which 
Round  has  printed  {I.  c,  417-430),  aU  of  which  are  plainly  contemporaneous  records 
of  transactions  of  the  reign  of  Henry  I  and  show  no  trace  of  tampering.  The  form 


HENRY  I 


89 


officers  of  the  household  —  Robert  de  Courcy  seneschal,  Henry 
de  la  Pommeraie  and  William  Fitz  Odo  constables,  William  of 
Glastonbury  chamberlain/®  and  Wigan  the  marshal  —  together 
with  Robert  the  treasurer  2"  and  two  other  clerks,  sit  in  judgment 
as  *  barons  of  the  Exchequer  '  to  determine  the  ownership  of  a 
piece  of  land,  as  well  as  to  protect  possession  previously  estab- 
lished at  the  Exchequer  before  John,  bishop  of  Lisieux,  Robert  de 
la  Haie  seneschal,  and  others.  With  this  clue  in  our  hands,  we 
shall  have  httle  difficulty  in  recognizing  the  same  body  in  the  fol- 
lowing charter,  in  which,  this  time  under  the  name  of  the  king's 
curia,  it  sustains  the  appeal  of  the  abbot  of  Fecamp  against  an 
infringement  of  the  abbey's  haute  justice  by  the  king's  justices. 
It  is  not  stated  that  the  witnesses  to  the  charter  are  the  members 
of  the  court  who  rendered  the  decision,  but  such  is  doubtless  the 
case.  The  bishop  of  Lisieux,  the  two  seneschals,  and  William  of 
Glastonbury  are  known  to  us  as  barons  of  the  Exchequer  from 
the  document  already  mentioned,  while  William  d'Aubigny  the 

can  also  be  found  in  St.  Paul's  charters  of  the  same  period:  9  Historical  MSS.. Com- 
mission, p.  61  f.  Valin's  main  argument,  the  statement  that  there  was  no  such 
thing  as  a  Norman  Exchequer  before  11 76,  will  be  disposed  of  in  Chapter  V.  As 
Powicke  points  out  {Loss  of  Normandy,  p.  85),  the  name  is  of  subordinate  impor- 
tance; the  existence  of  the  court  imder  Henry  I  is  abundantly  established  by 
the  documents  printed  in  Chapter  III. 

1*  The  ofi6ce  inherited  by  William  from  his  uncle  Walchelin  was  a  chamberlain- 
ship  {Monasticon,  vii.  1000).  He  also  appears  in  two  other  documents  relating  to 
the  administration  of  justice  in  Normandy:  E.  H.  R.,  xiv.  424;  Livre  noir,  no.  8. 

2°  For  proof  that  Robert  of  fivreux  was  treasurer,  see  below,  p.  108  f.  As  the 
charter  there  quoted  shows  that  he  was  chaplain  to  Stephen,  he  caimot  be  the  man 
of  this  name  whose  son  appears  as  a  claimant  for  his  father's  land  in  Cornwall  in 
1130,  so  that  Round's  reason  for  dating  his  plea  before  1130  falls. 

Murder  and  arson  were  pleas  of  the  crown  in  Normandy,  but  had  been  con- 
ferred on  certain  immunists  by  ducal  grant.  See  supra,  Chapter  I;  and  Appendix 
D.  For  the  reign  of  Henry  I  the  clearest  statement  is  found  in  his  charter  of  1134 
for  Bee:  '  Concedimus  etiam  eisdem  monachis  ut  habeant  in  tota  parochia  Becci 
omnes  regias  Ubertates:  murdrum,  mortem  hominis,  plagam,  mehaim,  sanguinem, 
aquam,  et  ignem,  sed  et  latronem  in  Becci  parochia  captum  undecumque  fuerit,  et 
omnes  alias  regias  libertates  quocumque  nomine  vocentur,  excepto  solummodo 
rapto,  de  quo  honestius  existimavimus  seculares  quam  monachos  iudicare: '  MS. 
Lat.  13905,  f.  gv;  MS.  Lat.  1S97B,  f.  i66v;  Archives  Nationales,  JJ.  92,  f.  17,  no. 
58;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  375;  Poree,  Bee,  i.  658  f.  From  a  comparison  of  this 
with  the  Fecamp  charter  printed  in  the  text,  E.  Perrot,  Les  cas  royaux,  p.  315, 
argues  that  the  theory  of  pleas  of  the  crown  had  not  yet  become  permanently  fixed. 


90 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


butler  and  Geoffrey  de  Clinton  chamberlain  and  treasurer  ^  are 
well-known  ofi&cers  of  Henry's  household. 

(1)  H.  rex  Angl[orum]  iustic[iis]  et  omnibus  baronibus  et  vicfecomitibtis] 
et  ministris  et  omnibus  fidelibus  suis  totius  terre  sue  salutem.  Sciatis  quia 
iuditio  et  consideratione  curie  mee  per  privilegium  ecclesie  de  Fiscann[o] 
ex  dono  et  concessione  predecessorum  meorum  remanserunt  Rogero  abbati 
Fiscann[ensi]  et  conventui  Fiscann[ensi]  .xxi.^  libre  de  placit[o]  de  quadam 
combustione  et  .xx.  libre  de  plac[ito]  de  quodam  homicidio  factis  in  terra 
Sancte  Trinitatis  Fiscann[i],  unde  iusticia  mea  placitaverat  et  duellum 
tenuerat  de  combustione  in  curia  mea.  Ideoque  precipio  et  volo  quod  amodo 
teneat  predicta  abbatia  Sancte  Trinitatis  de  Fiscann[o]  omnes  dignitates 
suas  et  rectitudines  et  consuetudines  tam  in  placitis  quam  in  omnibus  aliis 
rebus,  sicut  umquam  prefata  abbatia  melius  et  quietius  et  honorificentius 
tenuit  tempore  predecessorum  meorum  et  sicut  carta  ecclesie  testatur  et 
sicut  per  breve  meum  precipio.  T[estibus]  lohanne  Lexov[iensi]  episcopo  et 
Roberto  de  Haia  et  Roberto  de  Curceio  et  Willelmo  de  Albeny  et  Galfr[edo] 
de  Clinton[ia]  et  WUlelmo  de  Glestingeberia.   Apud  Rothom[agum].^ 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  word  curia  in  this  charter  is  used 
of  two  different  bodies,  the  household  officials,  probably  sitting 
at  Rouen,  where  the  charter  is  issued,  and  the  king's  justices 
{iusticia),  from  whose  jurisdiction  in  holding  pleas  of  the  crown 
the  abbot  claims  exemption.  In  the  following  documents  we  see 
the  king  and  his  curia  deterrnining  questions  of  title  to  land,  but 
nothing  is  said  of  the  composition  of  the  court: 

(2)  H.  rex  Angl[orum]  Ric[ardo]  episcopo  Baioc[ensi]  et  omnibus  baro- 
nibus et  fidelibus  suis  deOismeis  salutem.  Sciatis  meconcessisseDeo  etSancto 
Martino  et  monachis  de  Troarz  amodo  in  perpetuum  totum  mariscum  unde 
placitum  fuit  in  curia  mea  inter  monachos  predictos  et  Robertum  de  Usseio. 
Ipse  enim  Robertus  predictus  recognovit  rectum  eorum  quod  iniuste  earn 
{sic)  clamabat  et  illam  calumpniam  marisci  quam  habebat  in  eo  Deo  et 
Sancto  Martino  clamavit  quietam  coram  me.  Et  volo  et  concedo  et  finniter 
precipio  ut  amodo  in  pace  et  honorifice  et  quiete  et  perpetualiter  teneat 
ecclesia  supradicta  totum  illud  mariscum  absque  caliunpnia  et  teneat  et 
habeat  sicut  melius  et  honorabUius  et  quietius  tenet  suas  alias  res.  T[estibus] 
Roberto  com[ite]  de  Mellent  et  Nig[ello]  de  Albrnni.    Apud  Rothomagum." 

^  Pipe  Roll  31  Henry  I,  p.  37;  Monasticon,  vi.  220;  Calendat  of  Charter  Rolls, 
iii.  275. 

^  The  cartulary  has  '.xx.' 

"  Public  Record  Office,  Cartae  Antiquae,  S.  3;  cartulary  of  Fecamp  in  the 
library  at  Rouen,  MS.  1207,  no.  7,  where  only  the  first  of  the  witnesses  is  given. 
Valin,  p.  259,  prints  from  the  cartulary. 

25  Original,  formerly  sealed  sur  simple  queue,  in  Archives  of  the  Calvados, /ow<i^ 
Troam  (Marais,  liasse  2,  no.  ^^Us)•,  copy  by  La  Rue  in  the  Collection  Mancel  at 


HENRY  I 


91 


(3)  Notum  sit  domino  Normannig  et  omnibus  hgredibus  meis,  baronibus, 
prepositis,  et  ministris  quod  ego  Guillelmus  comes  de  Pontivo  cum  essem 
apud  Falesiam  ante  dominum  meum  Henricum  regem  Anglorum  habm  ver- 
bum  cum  Rogerio  de  Gratapanchia  patre  et  filio  de  maresco  quod  calumnia- 
bantur  contra  Sanctum  Martinum  et  monachos  eius,  et  rem  gestam  et  tanto 
tempore  a  meis  antecessoribus  possessam  et  quomodo  liberam  et  communem 
regi  prgfato  ostendi.  Diiudicavit  autem  rex  et  eius  curia  per  verba  mea  et 
illorum  Sancto  Martino  et  monachis  remanere  marescum  quietum  et  liberum 
et  amplius  non  debere  fieri  inde  contra  eos  calumniam.  Quapropter  prgcipio 
omnibus  hgredibus  meis  ut  hgc  firmiter  in  perpetuum  teneant.  Huius  fijiis 
testes  mei  sunt  Hugo  vicecomes  et  Robertus  frater  eius,  Paganus  filius 
Hugonis  de  Mesdavid,  Guillelmus  de  CorceUa,  Ascelinus  et  Serlo  capel- 
lani.  H§c  autem  facta  sunt  anno  ab  incamatione  Domini  .M.C.XXIX.  in 
Pentecosten.** 

In  the  following  plea  "  of  the  year  11 11,  the  judges  are  named, 
but  they  are  styled  optimates  and  appear  to  have  been  taken  from 
the  great  men  of  the  duchy  rather  than  exclusively  from  the  royal 
household.  Apparently  the  king  was  not  present.  The  final  agree- 
ment, dated  18  December  1138,  is  interesting  for  its  reference  to 
the  justiciarship  of  William  of  Rotmiare,  created  by  Stephen  on 
his  departure  from  Normandy  toward  the  close  of  1137,^*  and  for 
the  list  of  barons  witnessing.  The  civil  strife  at  Rouen  is  evidently 
that  of  1090.2' 

(4)  In  nomine  domini  nostri  lesu  Christi  ad  noticiam  presentium  et  me- 
moriam  futurorum,  ad  evitandam  in  posterum  rerum  oblivionem  et  adverse 
partis  controversiam,  litteris  annotamus  et  apicibus  subsequentibus  non 
abolendis  temporibus  commendamus  qualiter  pontificante  papa  Paschali 
anno  ab  incamatione  Domini  .M°.C°.XI°.  sub  rege  Henrico  abbas  Ursus  et 
postea  ecclesie  Romane  presidente  papa  Innocentio  regnante  rege  Stephano 
abbas  WiUelmus  anno  ab  incamatione  Domini  .M°.C°.XXX°.Vin°.  ca- 
lumpniam  quam  heredes  Clari,  Balduinus  videlicet  et  Clarus  frater  eius,  de 

Caen,  MS.  159,  f.  I.  Now  also  printed  in  Sauvage,  Troofn,  p.  265,  n.  3.  Anteriorto 
1 1 18,  the  year  of  the  death  of  the  count  of  Meulan. 

Original,  with  seal  of  red  wax  in  parchment  cover,  attached  siir  double  queue. 
Now  also  printed  in  Sauvage,  p.  368;  Valin,  p.  262.  This  and  a  charter  of  Wil- 
liam's son  John  are  found,  in  original  and  copy,  with  the  preceding. 

^'  Original  notice,  with  no  sign  of  having  been  sealed,  in  Archives  of  the  Seine- 
Inf^rieure,  fonds  Jumieges;  copy  by  Bigot  in  MS.  Lat.  10055,  f-  84.  Now  also 
printed  in  Valin,  p.  260;  Vernier,  no.  61.  The  personnel  of  the  court  is  analyzed  by 
R.  de  FrevUle,  in  Nouvelle  revue  hisloriqm  de  droit,  191 2,  pp.  687-696. 

28  '  Neustrie  vero  iusticiarios  GuiUelmum  de  Rohnara  et  Rogerium  vicecomitem 
aliosque  nonnullos  constituerat : '  Ordericus,  v.  91.  See  infra,  Chapter  IV,  note  15. 

2'  Ordericus,  iii.  351  ff.  A  Clarus  de  Rothomago  appears  as  tenant  of  the  bishop 
of  Bayeux  in  1133:  H.  F.,  xxiii.  701. 


92 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


mansione  qug  est  apud  Rothomagum  turris  Rainerii  cognominata  et  a  beato 
Audoeno  Sancto  Philiberto  et  ecclesig  Gemmeticensi  iure  perpetuo  possi- 
denda  donata,  sicut  principali  comitis  Ricardi  auctoritate  karta  teste  robora- 
tum  est,  dif&nierunt.  Que  res  se  ita  habet:  Dominante  in  Normannia 
Rotberto  comite  in  urbe  Rothomagensi  gravis  dissensio  inter  partes  Pila- 
tensium  scilicet  et  Calloensium  exorta  est  que  multa  civitatem  strage 
vexavit  et  miiltos  nobilium  utriusque  partis  gladio  prostravit.  Inter  quos 
partis  Pilatensium  erat  quidam  rebus  et  nomine  quern  supra  diximus  valde 
Clarus  qui  abbati  et  monachis  Gemmeticensibus  pro  sue  actu  et  merito  pluri- 
mum  erat  cams.  Hie  ergo,  quia  domus  prefata  in  munition  loco  consistit, 
renrni  metuens  eventum,  ut  ibi  hospes  degeret  expetiit  et  pro  sua  probitate  et 
bonitate  ad  tempus  impetravit.  Quo  decedente  et  rege  Henrico  principante 
j&lius  ipsius  Balduinus  hereditario  iure  mansionem  ibidem  violenter  voluit 
optinere,  sed  abbate  Ursone  §quitatem  iudicii  reposcente  in  causam  vocatus 
et  nichn  rationis  dicere  visus,  iudicio  optimatum  eadem  domo  exire  et  dein- 
ceps  carere  iussus  est.  Qui  videlicet  indices  hi  fuerunt:  Gaufridus  Rotho- 
magensis  archiepiscopus,  lohannes  Luxoviensis  episcopus,  Rotbertus  comes 
Mellenti,  Willelmus  comes  Warenne,  Gislebertus  de  Aquila,  Willelmus 
camerarius  de  TancardiviUa,  Willelmus  de  Ferrariis. 

NonnuUis  postea  evolutis  annis  cum  Balduinus  obisset  in  primordio  excel- 
lentissimi  regis  Stephani,  Clarus  eiusdem  frater  super  eodem  negocio  regias 
aures  pulsare  et  abbatem  Willelmum  cepit  vexare.  Que  causa  multis  locis  et 
temporibus  varie  tractata  est  et  multismodis  ut  penitus  finiretur  a  nobiHbus 
et  prudentibus  viris  utrinque  amicis  elaboratum  est.  Tandem  in  hoc  rei 
summa  devenit  ut  idem  Clarus  ab  abbate  iiii".  marchas  argenti  acceperit  et 
fide  data  quod  nec  ipse  nec  quisquis  suorum  pro  se  vel  per  se  de  predicta 
domo  ulterius  calumpniam  moveret  abiuravit  et  fihos  suos  qui  time  non 
aderant  infra  .xl.  dies  adventus  eorum  ab  abbate  conventus  ad  id  se 

inchnaturum  sub  eadem  fide  promisit.  Itaque  Willelmo  de  Roumara  ius- 
ticiam  regis  in  Normannia  conservante,  dominica  natale  Domini  proxima 
precedente  quando(?)  idem  natale  mortalibus  cunctis  honorandum  subse- 
quente  proxima  dominica  erat  celebrandum,apud  Rothomagum  in  domo  que 
fuerat  Audoeni  Postelli  ista  pactio  a  Godoboldo  de  Sancto  Victore  recitata  ac 
perorata  est  et  pecunia  Claro  tradita  est,  sub  principibus  baronibus  et  testi- 
bus  his:  Ludovico  abbate  Sancti  Georgii,  Gualeranno  comite  Mellenti,  Wil- 
lelmo comite  Warenne  fratre  eius,  Hugone  de  Gornaco,  Rotberto  de  Novo 
Burgo,  lohanne  de  Lunda,  Rogerio  de  Paviliaco,  Radulfo  de  Bosco  Rohardi, 
Rotberto  WesnevaUis,  Osberno  de  KaiUiaco,  Ingelraimo  de  WascoUo, 
Walterio  de  Cantelou,  Waleranno  de  Mellente  et  Willelmo  de  Pinu,  luhel 
consanguineo  Clari,  Luca  pincerna,  Godoboldo  de  Sancto  Victore,  Alveredo 
fratre  eius,  Stephano  filio  Radulfi,  Radulfo  fiho  Rotberti,  UrseHno  de  Wan- 
teria,  Radulfo  de  BeUomonte,  lohanne  fratre  eius,  Radulfo  filio  Rainboldi. 
Ex  parte  abbatis:  Gisleberto  de  Mara  fidei  susceptore,  Geroldus  ad  barbam, 
Rainaldo  Vulpe,  WiUelmo  Clarello,  Rotberti  Filiolo,  Waltero  de  Eudonisvilla, 
Radulfo  Calcaterram  fratre  eius,  RabeUo  filio  Goscelini. 

So  far  the  evidence  respecting  judicial  organization  has  been  of 
a  rather  general  character,  but  when  we  come  to  investigate  the 


HENRY  I 


93 


ducal  justices  we  are  on  firmer  ground.  The  existence  of  a  regular 
body  of  Norman  justices  under  Henry  I  is  plain,  first  of  all,  from 
their  enumeration  with  the  other  ducal  officers  in  the  addresses  of 
his  general  charters,  and  is  clearly  seen  from  the  writs  directed 
iusticiis  suis  Normannie  and  from  the  clause,  perpetuated  under 
Geoffrey  andHenry  II,  nisifeceris  iusticia  mea  facial?^  The  duke's 
justices  are  mentioned  as  early  as  ii  08  in  a  charter  for  Monte- 
bourg,32  and  about  the  same  time  —  in  any  case  not  later  than  the 
following  year  —  we  find  a  chief  justiciar,  mens  proprius  iusii- 
tiarius  .  .  .  qui  super  omnes  alios  vice  mea  iustitiam  tenet,^^  or, 

Livretioir,  no.  8;  Round,  Co/en<iar,  nos.  107, 875.  Cf.  Round,  no.  479;  Delisle, 
Cartulaire  normand,  no.  737,  and  nos.  15,  17,  and  18,  printed  below.  The  following 
writ,  from  a  vidimus  of  the  vicomte  of  Pontaudemer  in  1338,  is  unprinted:  '  H.  rex 
Angl[orum]  iusticiar[iis]  Norm[annie]  salutem.  Mando  vobis  quod  faciatis  habere 
abbati  de  Fiscampo  terram  et  prata  de  mariscis  de  Aisi  ita  bene  et  plenarie  et  iuste 
sicut  comes  de  Mellent  ea  tenuit  de  eo  tempore  suo,  ne  super  hoc  inde  amplius 
clamorem  audiam.  T[este]  canclellario]  apud  Bonam  ViUam.'  Archives  of  the 
Seine-Inferieure, Fecamp,  box  A  (Aizier). 

'1  See  no.  13  below,  and  the  Livre  noir,  no.  37.  A  vidimus  of  PhUip  the  Fair  of 
1313  offers  another  example:  '  H.  rex  Angl[orum]  W[illelmo]  de  Roumara  salutem. 
Sicut  .  .  abbatissa  Sancti  Amandi  Maeelina  et  ecclesia  sua  saisite  fuerunt  de 
ecclesia  sua  de  Roumara  et  de  hiis  que  ad  ecclesiam  pertinent  anno  et  die  qua  pater 
meus  fuit  vivus  et  mortuus  et  postea  earn  tenuit  tempore  patris  et  fratris  mei  et  meo 
et  Emma  abbatissa  post  eam  hucusque,  sic  precipio  quod  inde  amodo  versus  nemi- 
nem  ponatur  in  placito,  quia  hoc  est  statutum  terre  mee.  Sed  bene  et  in  pace  teneat 
sicut  ecclesia  sua  in  retro  tenuit  hucusque.  Et  nisi  feceris  archiepiscopus  et  iusticia 
mea  facient.  T[este]  R[oberto]  de  Ver  apud  Rothomagum.'  Archives  of  the  Seine- 
Inferieure, /o«(i5  SaLnt-Amand;  Archives  Nationales,  JJ.  49,  no.  48;  copy  in  MS. 
Lat.  17131,  f.  100. 

'  Volo  autem  et  districte  precipio  ne  iusticie  mee  manum  mittant  pro  iusticia 
facienda  in  villa  Montisburgi  diebus  mercati  sive  nundinarum  ' :  Delisle,  Carltdaire 
normand,  no.  737;  Calendar  of  Charter  Rolls,  iv.  157.  The  charter  is  witnessed  by 
Anselm,  and  Henry  was  absent  from  England  from  the  summer  of  1 108  until  after 
Anselm's  death.  The  same  phrase  appears  in  a  charter  for  Montebourg  purporting 
to  emanate  from  William  Rufus  {Livre  hlanc,  in  Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  8391, 
f.i;  Gallia  Christiana, xi.instT.  229;  iVew^ina  Pza,  p.  672),  but  it  is  evident  from  the 
witnesses  that  this  has  been  forged  on  the  basis  of  the  charter  of  Henry  I;  see  supra, 
Chapter  II,  note  57. 

^  Charters  for  Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive,  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  156-160.  The 
first  of  these,  witnessed  by  William,  archbishop  of  Rouen,  who  died  in  February 
1 1 10,  is  anterior  to  Henry's  departure  for  England  in  the  preceding  May;  it  may 
have  suffered  some  alterations,  but  the  original  of  the  other  charter  is  still  pre- 
served m  the  Archives  of  the  Calvados. 


94 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


more  succinctly,  iusticia  mea  capitalis.^  Ordinarily,  as  in  the 
Fecamp  charter  printed  above  (no.  i)  and  in  nos.  5  and  6  below, 
the  word  iustitia  denotes  the  body  of  justices. 

What  is  perhaps  our  clearest  bit  of  evidence  respecting  the 
justices  of  Henly  I  is  contained  in  the  '  Emptiones  Eudonis,'  a 
document  of  1 1 29-1 131^^  which  comprises  a  series  of  notices  of  the 
acquisitions  made  by  Saint-Etienne  of  Caen  under  the  adminis- 
tration of  AbbotEudo  (i  107-1 140) .  Of  the  suits  here  recorded  the 
first  came  before  the  king  and  the  whole  curia  at  Arganchy; 
besides  the  bishop  of  Lisieux,  two  of  the  barons  who  attest  are 
household  officers,  namely  Robert  de  Courcy  seneschal,  and 
William  of  Tancarville  chamberlain  (d.  1129").  In  the  second 
case,  which  is  prior  to  11 22,  we  find  a  full  court  (tocius  iusticie)  of 
five  justices  sitting  in  the  castle  at  Caen,  where  the  Exchequer  of 

^  This  phrase  occurs  in  a  charter  for  Beaubec  which  has  come  down  to  us  with 
the  style  of  Henry  II,  but  has  the  witnesses  of  a  charter  of  Henry  I  and  is  apparently 
cited  in  a  charter  of  Stephen  which  accompanies  it  io  the  cartularj':  '  Prohibeo  ne 
de  aliqua  possessione  sua  trahantur  in  causam  nisi  coram  me  vel  coram  iusticia  mea 
capitalL  Et  nichil  retineo  in  aUquo  predictorum  preter  oraciones  monachorum. 
T[estibus]  episcopo  Bem[ardo]  de  Sancto  David,  W[illelmo]  de  Tanc[ardivi]la]  cam- 
[erario],  R[ogero  ?]  filio  Ricardi,  apud  Clarendonam.'  Vidimus  of  1311  (badly 
faded),  and  Coutiimier  de  Dieppe  (G.  851,  f.  5 yv) ,  Ln  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure; 
Archives  Nationales,  JJ.  46,  f.  37V;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  314,  as  a  charter  of  Henry  II. 
In  England  the  same  phrase  is  found  in  a  charter  of  Henry  for  Holy  Trinity,  Lon- 
don: original  in  PubUc  Record  Office,  Ancient  Deeds,  AS.  317  (before  11 23). 

Other  examples  are  the  assistance  given  Rabel  of  TancarvdUe  by  the  canons  of 
SaLnte-Barbe  '  erga  iusticiam  regis  Henrici '  (Round,  Calendar,  no.  568);  'per 
manus  iusticie  mee  '  {Tris  Ancien  Cmitimier ,  c.  71);  a  transaction  under  Henry  II 
'in  castello  Cadomi  coram  iustitia  regis'  (Deville,  Analyse,  p.  52);  and  the  follow- 
ing notice  in  a  cartulary  of  Troarn:  '  WUlelmus  rex  et  Rogerius  comes  dederunt 
nobis  decimam  de  crasso  pisce  RetisviUe,  quam  Robertus  de  Turpo  nobis  voluit 
auferre  sed  reddidit  coactus  iusticia  regis  Heiuici'  (MS.  Lat.  10086,  f.  sv;  Sauvage, 
Troarn,  p.  359). 

It  falls  between  the  release  of  Galeran  de  Meulan  in  11 29  (Simeon  of  Durham, 
ii.  283;  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle;  Ordericus,  iv.  463)  and  the  death  of  Richard  of 
Coutances,  18  November  1131  {Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  874;  H.  F.,  xxiii.  475).  Henry 
was  absent  in  England  from  15  July  11 29  to  September  1130,  and  again  beginning 
with  the  summer  of  1131;  see  Appendix  G. 

Annals  of  Saint- Wandrille,  Histoire  lilteraire  de  la  France,  xxxii.  204.  In  the 
Pipe  Roll  of  1 130  we  find,  not  WiUiam,  but  Rabel  of  Tancarville.  If,  as  seems  likely, 
the  order  of  notices  in  the  '  Emptiones  '  is  chronological,  the  judgment  at  Arganchy 
was  rendered  before  11 18,  the  year  of  the  death  of  William,  count  of  fivreux,  who 
makes  the  grant  which  follows  next  but  one. 


HENRY  I 


95 


the  later  twelfth  century  regularly  held  its  sessions;  John  of 
Lisieux,  Robert  de  la  Haie,  and  Hugh  de  Montfort  constable,^* 
are  among  the  judges,  but  we  are  hardly  justified  in  assuming  that 
this  was  a  meeting  of  the  Exchequer.  The  action  of  the  justices  in 
deputing  one  of  their  number  to  take  surety  from  the  disturber 
of  the  monks  should  be  noted.  The  proceedings  in  the  third  case 
took  place  likewise  in  the  castle  at  Caen,  before  the  king  and 
three  justices.  Here  the  justices  are  sharply  distinguished  from 
the  barons,^^  and  Roger  Marmion,  who  acted  as  justice  in  the 
preceding  case,  attests  simply  as  a  baron.'"' 

(5)  Emit  Eudo  abbas  a  Willelmo  de  capella  molendinum  de  Drocione 
iuxta  Divam  viginti  duabus  libris  in  prima  emptione,  de  quo  molendino 
desaisitus  per  Robertum  Frellam  dedit  prefatus  abbas  predicto  Willelmo 
alias  .xxii"^.  libras  ut  ipsum  molendinum  contra  predictum  Robertum  dis- 
rationaret  et  Sancto  Stephano  adquietaret.  Que  disratiocinatio  et  adquie- 
tatio  facta  fuit  apud  Argenteium  ante  regem  Henricum  ibique  in  presentia 
ipsius  regis  et  tocius  curie  recognitum  fuit  ipsum  molendinimi  esse  de  fedio 
regis.  Cuius  rei  testis  est  rex  ipse  et  barones  ipsius,  lohannes  scilicet  Lexo- 
viensis  episcopus,  Robertus  de  Curceio,  WiUelmus  de  Tancardivilla,  Willel- 
mus  Pevrellus,  Rainaldus  de  Argenteio.  Testes  utriusque  emptionis  et  tocius 
consununationis  ex  parte  Sancti  Stephani :  Robertus  de  GrainviUa,  Warinus 
de  Diva,  Willelmus  Rabodus  et  fratres  eius.  Ex  parte  Willelmi :  Willelmus 
frater  eius,  Robertus  de  Hotot,  Radulphus  filius  Ansfride,  Malgerius  de  Bosa- 
valle,  Rainaldus  filius  Ase.  Dedit  etiam  predictus  abbas  uxori  eiusdem  Wil- 
lelmi pro  concessione  huius  venditionis,  quia  ipsum  molendinum  de  eius 
maritagio  erat,  xl.  solidos  Rotomagensium.  Testes:  Robertus  portarius, 
Rogerius  camerarius,  Warinus  Cepellus,  Willelmus  cocus  et  alii  plures.  .  .  . 

Rogerius  filius  Petri  de  Fontaneto  in  castello  Cadomi  in  presentia  tocius 
iusticie  reddidit  Sancto  Stephano  terram  illam  et  omnes  decimas  illas  quas 
ipse  sanctus  a  Godefrido  avo  illius  et  a  patre  suo  habuerat  easque  eidem 
sancto  deinceps  firmiter  in  perpetuimi  tenendas  concessit.  Et  quia  idem 
Rogerius  abbatem  et  monachos  pro  eisdem  decimis  sepius  vexaverat,  ex  con- 
sideratione  iusticie  Gaufrido  de  Sublis  fidem  suam  afiidavit  quod  nunquam 
amplius  damnum  contrarium  ac  laborem  inde  Sancto  Stephano  faceret  sed 
manuteneret  et  bene  adquietaret.  Et  ut  hec  omnia  firmissimo  et  indissolubili 
vinculo  Sancto  Stephano  teneret,  abbas  et  monachi  societatem  quam  pre- 
decessores  illius  in  monasterio  habuerant  illi  concessenint  et  insuper  de 
caritate  .xl.  solidos  et  imum  equum  ei  dederunt.  Testes  ipsa  iusticia,  lohan- 

Round,  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  p.  326.  Hugh  revolted  in  11 22,  and  was  kept 
in  close  confinement  after  his  capture  in  1124:  Ordericus,  iv.  441,  458,  463. 

"  Cf.  Delisle,  in  B.  t,.  C,  x.  273;  Fr^ville,  in  Nouvelle  revue  hislorique  de  droit, 
1912,  p.  70s  f. 

Roger  Marmion  was  dead  in  1130,  when  his  son  paid  relief  for  his  lands:  Pipe 
Roll  31  Henry  I,  p.  iii. 


96 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


nes  scilicet  Luxoviensis  episcopus,  Robertus  de  Haia,  Hugo  de  Monteforti, 
Gaufridus  de  Sublis,  Rogerius  Marmio.  Ex  parte  Sancti  Stephani:  Ran- 
nulfus  de  Taissel  et  Ricardus  filius  eius,  Radidfus  de  Hotot,  Aigulfus  de  Mer- 
cato  et  nepotes  illius.  Ex  parte  Rogerii:  Radulfiis  sororius  eius,  Anschitillus 
heres  de  Hotot,  Radulfus  de  luvinneio.  .  .  . 

Huius  autem  ville*'  ecclesiam  quam  Sanctus  Stephanus  antiquitus  in 
magna  pace  tenuerat  Herbertus  quidam  clericus  ei  modis  quibuscumque 
poterat  auferre  querens  abbatem  et  monachos  inde  diu  fortiter  vexavit. 
Quorum  vexation!  Henricus  rex  finem  imponere  decernens  utrisque  ante  se 
in  castello  Cadomi  diem  constituit  placitandi.  Die  igitvu-  constituto  abbas 
et  monachi  cum  omnibus  que  eis  necessaria  erant  ipsi  regi  et  iusticie  placitum 
suimi  obtulerunt.  Herberto  autem  ibi  in  audientia  regis  et  tocius  iusticie 
necnon  et  baronum  deficiente,  de  prefata  ecclesia  ipsius  regis  et  iusticie 
iudicio  Sanctus  Stephanus  saisitus  remansit,  nemini  deinceps  amplius  inde 
responsm-us.  Testes  huius  rei  ipse  rex  Henricus  et  iusticia,  lohannes  videHcet 
Luxoviensis  episcopus,  Robertus  de  Haia,  Gaufridus  de  Sublis,  et  barones 
Radulfus  Taisso,  Rogerius  Marmio,  WiUehnus  Patricus,  Robertus  Car- 
boneUus.  Ex  parte  Sancti  Stephani:  Rannulfus  de  TaisseUo  et  filii  eius 
WiUelmus  et  Ricardus,  Robertus  de  Grainvilla,  Radulfus  de  Hotot,  Warinus 
de  Diva  et  filii  eius. 

Has  emptiones  quas  fecit  predictus  abbas  et  donationes  quas  fecerunt 
suprascripti  barones  ego  Henricus  rex  Anglonmi  concedo  et  sigilli  mei  as- 
sertione  confirmo.  Huius  rei  sunt  testes  cum  signis  suis  subscripti  barones. 
Signimi  Henfrici  regis.  S.  Ricardi  f  Baiocensis  episcopi.  S.  lohannis  f  Luxo- 
viensis episcopi.  S.  Ricarfdi  Constanciensis  episcopi.  fS.  Turfgisi  Abrin- 
censis  episcopi.  S.  Rofberti  de  sigillo.  S.  Robertti  Sagiensis  episcopi.  S. 
Roberfti  comitis  Gloecestrie.  S.  Waleranfni  comitis  de  Mellent.  S.  Roberfti 
de  Haia,  S.  Rogefrii  vicecomitis.  S.  WiUelfmi  de  Albigneio.  S.  Roberfti  filii 
Bemardi.^ 

^*  SiccaviUa  (SecqueviUe-en-Bessin) . 

*^  Original,  endorsed  '  Emptiones  Eudonis,'  in  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H.  1834, 
no.  13-56/s.  The  charter,  which  measures  57  by  66  centimeters,  is  ruled  in  dry 
point  and  divided  into  four  columns;  there  is  a  double  queue  but  no  trace  of  a  seal. 
(Cf.  M.  A.  N.,  vii.  272,  no.  13;  a  copy  by  Hippeau  is  in  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1406,  ff.  76- 
8sv).  The  witnesses  are  printed  by  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur,  pieces,  no.  47;  the  slip 
which  makes  John,  bishop  of  Seez,  appear  as  Robert  between  two  other  Roberts  is 
not  of  the  sort  one  expects  in  an  original,  and  the  crosses  seem  to  have  been  made 
by  the  same  hand,  so  that  we  may  have  only  an  early  copy.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
of  the  genuineness  of  the  contents,  as  the  substance  of  the  notices  is  reproduced, 
without  the  names  of  justices  or  witnesses,  in  one  of  Henry  I's  great  charters  for 
Saint-Etienne  in  the  same  archives  (H.  1833,  no.  12-3;  63  by  52  centimeters) .  The 
witnesses  of  this  are  given  by  Delisle,  Cartttlaire  nvrmatul,  no.  828;  they  are  identical 
with  those  of  another  charter  for  the  same  monastery,  evidently  issued  at  the  same 
time  (H.  1833,  ^o.  i2his-ihis;  74  by  52  centimeters).  The  two  are  incorporated 
by  Henry  II  into  a  single  charter  of  extraordinary  length:  Delisle-Berger,  no.  154. 
The  *  Emptiones  Eudones  '  were  transcribed  into  the  lost  cartulary  of  Saint- 


HENRY  I  97 

The  following  document  of  May  1133  is  of  greater  interest 
for  the  procedure  than  for  the  composition  of  the  king's  court; 
unfortunately  it  is  known  only  through  an  extract  from  a  lost  car- 
tulary, and  the  omitted  portions  are  plainly  of  importance.  A  cer- 
tain Fulk,  vassal  of  the  abbot  of  Troarn  in  respect  of  a  certain  fief, 
also  claims  to  hold  of  the  abbot  the  entertainment  of  a  man  and  a 
horse.  The  king  commands  the  abbot  to  do  the  claimant  right, 
and  a  duel  is  waged,  doubtless  in  the  abbot's  court,  and,  in  accord- 
ance with  a  practice  abundantly  exemplified  in  the  later  Exchequer 
RoUs,  recorded  at  Caen  before  the  king's  justices,  who  render  a 
decision  in  favor  of  the  abbot.  FuLk,  or  rather,  as  before,  his 
guardian  for  him,  then  brings  forward  another  claim,  this  time  to 
a  church  and  twenty  acres  of  land,  and  the  justices  again  order 
the  abbot  to  do  him  right;  but  the  suit  is  abandoned  at  the 
instance  of  the  patron  of  the  monastery,  William,  count  of  Pon- 
thieu.  It  should  be  noted  that  while  the  first  plea  is  held  per 
iussum  regis  Henrici,  Henry  had  been  absent  from  Normandy  for 
nearly  two  years.  There  was  nothing  to  prevent  the  plaintiff's 
securing  his  writ  from  England,  but  it  was  probably  granted  by 
the  justices  in  Normandy,  as  in  the  ensuing  complaint.  A  notice 
of  this  kind  must  not  be  pressed  too  hard,  but  there  is  no  indica- 
tion that  the  procedure  was  exceptional,  and  there  is  interest  in 
the  suggestion  which  the  account  affords  of  the  justices'  issuing 
writs  in  the  king's  name  and  taking  jurisdiction  in  disputes  be- 
tween a  lord  and  his  vassal.  Such  writs  of  right  indicate  that  Nor- 
mandy, as  well  as  England,  was  already  moving  in  the  direction 
of  the  procedure  found  in  Glanvill."*^  The  case  also  illustrates 
the  procedure  in  the  wager  of  battle  as  described  by  Glanvill:  the 
plaintiff  offers  battle  through  a  champion  who  still  preserves  the 
name,  if  not  also  the  character,  of  a  witness.  The  only  justice 

fitienne,  a  full  analysis  of  which  is  in  the  library  of  Sainte-Genevieve  at  Paris  (MS. 
1656),  whence  it  has  been  published  by  DevUle,  Analyse,  pp.  44-49.  The  notices 
which  mention  the  king's  justices  are  quoted  from  Deville's  text,  which  is  incom- 
plete and  very  carelessly  printed,  by  L.  W.  Vernon  Harcourt,  His  Grace  the  Steward, 
p.  26  f .  Valin  strangely  overlooks  the  whole  document. 

See  G.  B.  Adams,  Origin  of  the  English  Constitution,  pp.  78-80,  94-105.  Pro- 
fessor Adams  has  convinced  me  that  in  this  case  Fulk  was  the  tenant,  not  the  lord, 
of  the  abbot,  as  I  was  inclined  to  believe  in  1909. 
«  Bk.  ii,  c.  3. 


98 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


named  besides  the  bishop  of  Lisieux  is  William  Tanetin,"  who 
appears  to  be  acting  individually  when  the  suit  is  dismissed. 

(6)  xxiiii°  folio  veteris  cart[arii].  Notiim  sit  omnibus  quod  anno  millesimo 
centesimo  tricesimo  tercio  in  mense  maio,  per  clamorem  Fulconis  filii  Ful- 
conis  et  Rog[erii]  Pelavillani  vitrici  eius  qui  custodiebat  eum  et  terram  illius 
et  per  iussum  regis  Henrici,  tenuit  domnus  abbas  Andreas  placitum  et  recti- 
tudinem  illis  de  procuratu  unius  hominis  et  unius  equi  quern  dicebant  ipsum 
filium  Fulconis  debere  habere  ab  ipso  abbate  in  feudo  cum  alio  feudo  suo.  Et 
in  ipso  placito  fuit  inde  duellum  iudicatum  et  captum  inter  Hugonem  de 
Alimannia  qui  testis  erat  filii  Fulconis  et  Rad[ulfum]  filium  Fulberti.  Deinde 
in  eodem  mense  apud  Cad[omum]  recordatum  est  duellum  coram  iusticia 
regis,  scilicet  coram  lohanne  episcopo  Lex[oviensi]  et  WiUehno  Tanetin  et 
aliis,  et  iudicavit  cvuia  regis  quod  habere  non  debebant  quod  requirebant, 
etc.  Post  finem  huius  duelli  fecit  clamorem  Rog[erius]  PelavUlanus  coram 
iusticia  regis  quod  abbas  Troamensis  tollebat  filio  Fulconis  ecclesiam  de 
Turfredivilla  "  et  .xx.  acras  terre,  et  precepit  iusticia  regis  ut  abbas  rectitu- 
dinem  inde  teneret  ill[is].  Interea  venit  Troarnum  WQlelmus  comes  Ponti- 
vonmi  dominus  Troamensis  abbatie  et  interrogavit  ipsum  Rog[erium]  si  de 
hoc  vellet  placitare,  et  respondit  Rog[erius]  quod  in  pace  dimittebat  ex  toto 
in  finem  comiti  et  abbati,  etc.,  totum  id  est  et  placitimi  et  ecclesiam  et  terram, 
coram  ipso  comite  et  WLUehno  Tanetin  iusticiario  regis.  Plures  sxmt  testes." 

The  activity  of  the  justices  is  also  seen  from  writs  like  the  fol- 
lowing, which  should  be  compared  with  one  in  the  Livre  noir  of 
Bayeux/*  addressed  to  the  bishop  of  Lisieux,  Roger  de  Mande- 
\alle,  and  William  son  of  Ansger,  and  ordering  them  to  do  full 
justice  to  the  bishop  of  Bayeux  as  regards  any  disturbance  of  his 
rights: 

(7)  Henricus  rex  Anglonmi  lohamii  episcopo  Lexoviensi  et  Rogerio  de 
Magn[avilla]  salutem.  Precipio  vobis  ut  faciatis  tenere  plenimi  rectum  abbati 
de  Cadomo  de  aqua  de  Vei[m]  desicuti  ipsa  iacebat  ad  manerium  in  tempore 
patris  mei,  ita  ne  inde  clamorem  audiam.^' 

William  Tanetin  appears  as  dapifer  (of  the  count  of  Ponthieu  ?)  in  1127,  and 
as  tenant  of  the  count  in  1135  (Round,  Calendar,  nos.  590,  970).  He  is  frequently 
mentioned  in  the  cartulary  of  Troam  in  documents  ranging  from  1117  to  1135: 
MS.  Lat.  10086,  ff.  30V,  31,  152V;  Sauvage,  Troarn,  pp.  xxxii,  152,  225  f. 

Touffreville  (Calvados),  canton  of  Troam.  Cf.  Sauvage,  pp.  23,  140. 

Troam  cartulary,  MS.  Lat.  10086,  f.  3sv;  copy  by  the  abbe  La  Rue  in  MS. 
Caen  64,  f.  46V.  Now  also  printed  in  Valin,  p.  263. 

No.  29;  also  in  Livre  rouge  (MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1828),  no.  29.  Anterior  to  1122, 
when  William  Fitz  Ansger  was  dead  (DeUsle,  Rouleaux  des  tnorts,  p.  293). 

Library  of  Sainte-Gene\'ieve,  MS.  1656,  f.  20;  incorrectly  printed  by  Devolle, 
Analyse,  p.  18.  Vains  (Manche)  had  been  granted  to  Saint-fitienne  by  the  Con- 
queror: Appendix  E,  no.  i. 


HENRY  I 


99 


With  respect  to  the  personnel  of  the  king's  court  the  documents 
pubKshed  above,  taken  with  the  order  of  precedence  in  the  address 
of  the  king's  charters,^"  fully  substantiate  Round's  assertion  that 
Bishop  John  of  Lisieux  was  the  head  of  the  Norman  Exchequer; 
and  while  the  title  is  not  given  him  in  any  document  so  far  known, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  held  the  office  of  chief  justiciar. 
Next  to  the  bishop,  Robert  de  la  Haie  the  seneschal  appears  as 
the  principal  member  of  the  court,  indeed  the  absence  of  these  two 
on  account  of  illness  is  the  occasion  of  explanation.  Robert 
seems  to  have  been  the  chief  lay  officer  of  the  Norman  adminis- 
tration, for  his  name  heads  the  list  of  laymen  both  in  the  address 
and  in  the  testing  clause  of  Henry's  charters  except  when  he  is  pre- 
ceded by  some  one  of  the  rank  of  count.  When  Robert  de  la 
Haie  is  not  one  of  the  court,  the  other  Norman  seneschal,  Robert 
de  Courcy,  is  the  first  lay  member.  The  justiciar  and  the  seneschal 
would  thus  seem  to  have  been  the  important  elements  in  the  court. 

In  certain  of  Henry's  writs  we  find  a  distinction  drawn  between 
his  iusticia  Normannie  and  other  justices  in  a  way  which  suggests 
at  first  sight  the  chief  justiciar  in  contrast  to  his  colleagues,  but 
more  probably  has  reference  to  justices  who  were  local  or  were  at 
least  acting  locally.  Thus  a  writ  in  favor  of  the  canons  of  Bayeux 
is  addressed  iusticiis  suis  Normannie  et  Willelmo  Glast[onie]  et 
Eudoni  Baiocensi  et  G[aufrido]  de  Subles.^^   Another  writ,  evi- 

Round,  Calendar,  nos.  282,  569,  1436  (cf.  no.  611);  Ordericus,  iv.  435. 

"  E.  H.  R.,  xiv.  426;  supra,  note  18. 

E.  H.  R.,  sdv.  424;  supra,  nos.  i,  5;  infra,  nos.  9,  11,  12,  14;  Ordericus, 
iv.  43s;  Round,  Calendar,  nos.  107,  122,  123,  168,  197,  398,  724,924,998,  1191, 
1388,  1436  (where  Round  has  Richard,  but  the  Livre  noir,  no.  34,  has  simply  R.); 
Calendar  of  Charier  Rolls,  ii.  137;  Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls,  1330-1334,  p.  334,  1334- 
1338,  p.  249;  Montacuie Cartulary  (Somerset  Record  Society,  1894),  no.  164;  Appen- 
dix F,  nos.  10,  II.  Such  exceptions  to  the  precedence  of  Robert  in  the  testing 
clause  as  are  found  in  Round,  nos.  373,  375,  411,  and  Monasticon,  vii.  1071,  are 
not  originals;  but  no.  1052  in  Round  (from  a  copy  by  Gaignieres)  and  no.  828  in 
the  Cartulaire  normand  of  DeUsle  seem  to  be  real  exceptions.  The  place  of  Robert 
de  la  Haie  in  the  Norman  administration  shows  the  need  of  serious  modification 
in  Vernon  Harcourt's  view  of  the  unimportance  of  the  seneschal's  ofiice  in  this  reign; 
indeed,  in  view  of  the  almost  uniform  precedence  of  the  seneschals  in  Henry's 
charters,  it  is  impossible  to  maintain  that  they  show  "  no  trace  of  preeminence 
over  other  household  functionaries"  (His  Grace  the  Steward,  p.  24). 

"  Livre  noir,  no.  8;  U.  Chevalier,  Ordinaire  et  coutumier  de  I'eglise  de  Bayeux, 
p.  419;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  1437. 


lOO 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


dently  issued  in  the  vacancy  of  the  see  between  1133  and  1135, 
is  directed  iusticiis  et  custodihus  episcopatus  Baiocensis,  who  are 
ordered  to  execute  a  decision  of  the  king's  curia  in  a  case  between 
two  of  the  bishop's  vassals  —  et  nisi  Jeceritis  iusticia  Norm[annie] 
facial  fieri. '"^  There  are  also  writs  addressed  to  local  justices  in 
particular  districts:  iustitie  et  vicecomiti  Archarum,^'"  iusticiariis  et 
ministris  de  Sancto  Marculfo  et  de  Varrevilla,^  iusticiis  Ccnistan- 
tini,  iusticiis  Constantini  et  Valloniarum,^''  Algaro  de  Sancte 
Marie  Ecclesia  ceterisque  iusticiis  Constantini.'"^  In  the  first  of 
these  instances  the  justice  and  vicecomes  may  be  one  and  the  same, 
as  occurs  in  England  at  this  period, and  the  same  persons  may  be 
acting  as  justices  and  custodes  in  the  Bayeux  writ;  but  it  is  not 
likely  that  the  justices  and  jninistri  of  Saint-Marcouf  were  identi- 
cal, and  the  justices  of  the  Cotentin  have  no  other  title  and  are 
evidently  royal  judges  for  the  district,  whether  itinerant  or  acting 
under  local  commissions  it  is  impossible  to  say.  In  some  instances, 
as  when  the  bishop  of  Lisieux  is  associated  with  local  magnates 
like  Roger  de  ]Mande\-ille  and  William  Tanetin,  the  court  may 
have  consisted  of  an  itinerant  justiciar  and  a  local  judge.  In  order 
to  follow  out  questions  connected  with  the  local  administration  of 
justice,  we  should  need  to  examine  a  considerable  number  of  writs, 
or  at  least  a  considerable  group  of  those  relating  to  a  particular 
district  or  religious  establishment;  and  the  Norman  writs  of 
Henry's  reign  are  few  and  scattered.^**  Xot  all  of  the  following 
documents  for  the  abbey  of  ]Montebourg  relate  to  the  administra- 
tion of  justice,  but  they  are  printed  here  because  they  form  an 
interesting  group  which  has  not  as  yet  been  published 

"  Livre  tioir,  no.  37.  ^  No.  9,  below. 

^5  Round,  Calendar,  no.  398.  "  No.  11,  below. 

Henry  I  for  Heau\-ille,  a  priorj-  of  Marmoutier:  'ddimiis  in  ArcMves  of  the 
Manche;  copy  in  MS.  Grenoble  1402,  f.  232;  printed  in  Revue  caifwlique  de  Xor- 
mandie,  x.  350. 

5'  Stubbs,  ConstituiionM  History,  6th  ed.,  i.  423;  Round,  Geoffrey  de  MandenUe, 
p.  106 ff. 

^  The  two  most  important  sets  of  such  writs  are  those  in  the  Lkre  noir  of 
Bayeux  (nos.  8,  29,  34,  37,  38)  and  the  charters  and  writs  relating  to  Envermeu 
calendared  by  Round  {Calendar,  nos.  393-398).  See  also  the  writ  for  Saint-Pere 
of  Chartres  printed  below.  Chapter  VI,  p.  223. 

^  The  cartularj-  of  IMontebourg  (MS.  Lat.  10087)  was  unknown  to  Round,  as 
were  the  valuable  copies  of  docimients  relating  to  the  Cotentin  which  were  made  by 


HENRY  I 


lOI 


(8)  H.  rex  Angl[oruin]  vicec[omitibus]  et  prepositis  et  ministris  suis  tocius 
Costantini  salutem.  Precipio  vobis  quod  non  capiatis  hominem  aliquem  vel 
nampnum  eius  aliqua  occasione  in  mercato  de  Monteborc  die  ipso  quo  mer- 
catum  est,  si  eum  alia  die  et  alibi  in  terra  mea  eos  capere  poteritis.  Quia  nolo 
quod  mercatum  elemosine  mee  per  occasionem  destruatur.  T[este]  R[oberto] 
comite  Gloec[estrie]  apud  Argent[onum  ?]  per  WUlelmum  Glastonie.^^ 

(9)  H.  rex  Angl[oruin]  iusticiariis  et  ministris  de  Sancto  Malculpho  et  de 
Varrevilla^  et  omnibus  dominis  de  quibus  abbatia  de  Monteborc  tenet, 
salutem.  Precipio  quod  abbatia  de  Monteburgo  teneat  omnia  sua  ita  bene  et 
quiete  et  honorifice  sicut  liberior  abbacia  tocius  Normannie,  et  nominatim 
elemosinam  meam  terram  de  Foucarvilla  liberam  et  quietam  de  teloneo  et  de 
verec  et  de  omnibus  consuetudinibus  et  de  omnibus  querelis.  Nolo  enim  ut 
habeant  occasionem  mittendi  manum  uUo  modo  super  elemosinam  meam. 
Quod  si  quid  iniurie  fecerint,  videat  iusticia  mea  ne  perdam  rectum  meum; 
abbacia  namque  est  propria  mea  capella  et  ideo  precipio  vobis  ut  eam 
custodiatis.  T[este]  R[oberto]  de  Haia.    Apud  Roth[omagum]." 

(10)  H.  rex  Anglie  R[icardo]  Constantiensi  episcopo  et  vicec[omitibus]  et 
omnibus  baronibus  et  fidelibus  suis  de  Costent[ino]  salutem.  Sciatis  me  con- 
cessisse  abbatie  Sancte  Marie  Montisburgi  ecclesiam  de  MorfarivUla  cum 
feria  et  terris  et  decimis  et  omnibus  rebus  ipsi  ecclesie  pertinentibus,  quam 
Sanson  de  Morfarvilla  predicte  abbatie  dedit  et  concessit  concessione 
Roberti  de  Novo  Burgo  domini  sui  et  fratrum  eius.  Et  volo  et  precipio 
firmiter  ut  bene  et  in  pace  et  quiete  et  honorifice  teneat.  T[estibus]  Roberto 
de  Novo  Burgo  et  Willehno  de  Albinneio.  Apud  Rothomagmn.*^ 

Pierre  Mangon  at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  and  are  now  preserved  in  the 
library  of  Grenoble  (MSS.  1390-1402).  Cf.  Delisle,  Les  memoires  de  Pierre  Mangon, 
vicomte  de  Valognes,  in  Annuaire  de  la  Manche,  1891,  pp.  11-42.  Certain  docu- 
ments concerning  the  Norman  possessions  of  Montebourg  are  also  copied  in  the 
cartulary  of  Loders  in  the  British  Museum,  Add.  MS.  15605,  excerpted  in  Revue 
catholique  de  Normandie,  xvii-xLx. 

'2  MS.  Lat.  10087,  no.  8,  where  the  writ  is  dated  '  apud  Dug.'  The  vidimtis  in  the 
Archives  of  the  Manche  (H.  8426,  8527)  and  in  the  Archives  Nationales  (JJ.  52,  f. 
62,  JJ.  118,  f.  258);  MSS.  Grenoble  i395,£f.  9,  58,  and  1402,  f. 64V;  and  Add.  MS. 
15605  of  the  British  Museum,  ff.  13V,  14V,  26,  aU  have  '  Argent.'  For  the  contents 
of  the  privileges  of  the  market  of  Montebourg,  see  Delisle,  Cartulaire  normand,  no. 
737;  Revue  catholique,  xv\\.  :io?>;  Calendar  of  Charter  Rolls,  iv.  157. 

"  SaLnt-Marcouf  is  in  the  canton  of  Montebourg.  Varreville  and  FoucarviUe 
are  in  the  canton  of  Sainte-Mere-£glise  (Manche). 

^  MS.  Lat.  10087,  no.  9;  also  in  Livre  blanc  (Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  8391), 
f.  2;  MS.  Lat.  12885,  f.  161;  Add.MS.  i56o5,ff.  13V,  14V,  26.  Vidimus  \n  Krchxves 
of  the  Manche,  H.  8426,  8427,  10881,  and  in  Archives  Nationales,  JJ.  52,  f.  62,  JJ. 
118,  f.  25S.  Copies  in  MSS.  Grenoble  1395,  f.  28V,  and  1402,  f.  35V,  and  in  the  Baluze 
MSS.  of  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  MS.  58,  ff.  38,  39V.  In  MS.  Grenoble  139s, 
f.  9,  there  is  a  copy  of  this  writ  (from  a  vidimus  of  1315)  addressed  'episcopo  Con- 
st[antiensi]  et  iustic[iis]  Nonn[annie]  et  omnibus  .  .  .' 

"  Montfarville  (Manche),  canton  of  Quettehou.  MS.  Lat.  10087,  no.  10. 


102 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


(11)  H.  rex  Angl[orum]  iustic[iis]  Costentini  et  Willelmo  de  Bruis  et 
forestariis  suis  salutem.  Mando  vobis  atque  precipio  quod  pennittatis 
habere  monachos  de  Montisburg[o]  tot  arbores  in  Bniis  "  ad  focum  suum 
quot  ebdomade  habentur  in  anno  et  materiem  ad  sua  edificia  et  pasnagium 
suum  quietum  et  omnes  consuetudines  suas  liberas  et  quietas,  et  de  tot 
arboribus  sint  quieti  forestarii  in  placitis  meis  de  quot  garantizaverint  eos 
monachi  per  suas  taUlias.  T[este]  R[oberto]  comite  Gloec[estrie]  apud 
Roth[omagum]  per  R[obertum]  de  Haia.«« 

(12)  H.  rex  Angl[orum]  Ric[ardo]  episcopo  de  Constanc[iis]  et  W[il]elmo] 
de  Alben[neio]  salutem.  Precipio  ut  Unfredus  de  Alben[neio]  teneat  terram 
suam  in  pace  et  quiete  et  decimam  de  Morsalines  et  molendinum  et  quic- 
quid  habet  in  eadem  villa,  et  concedo  ut  ecclesia  de  Montebo[r]c  post  mortem 
Unfredi  eamdem  terram  habeat  in  quiete  et  pace  sicut  Unfridus  earn  eidem 
ecclesie  dedit.  T[este]  R[oberto]  de  Haia.  Apud  Roth[omagum].'"' 

(13)  H.  rex  Angl[orum]  W[Lllelmo]  de  Albin[neio]  salutem.  Precipio  quod 
ecclesia  de  Monteburgo  de  elemosina  mea  teneat  terram  suam  de  Morsalinis 
quam  Unfridus  de  Adevilla  ei  dedit  concessu  patris  tui  ita  bene  et  in  pace  et 
iuste  et  quiete  sicut  breve  patris  tui  quod  habet  testatur.  Et  nisi  feceris 
iusticia  mea  faciat,  ne  inde  amplius  clamorem  audiam  pro  penuria  plene 
iusticie  vel  recti.  T[este]  R[oberto]  comite  Gloec[estrie]  apud  Alg'  per  W. 
Filiastr[um].'i 

(14)  H.  rex  Angl[orum]  Ric[ardo]  de  AnsgervUla,  W.  de  Sancto  Germano 
salutem.  Precipio  vobis  quod  faciatis  ita  iuste  habere  abbati  de  Montisburgo 
octavam  partem  ecclesie  de  Herrevilla  sicut  habet  octavam  partem  terre 
eiusdem  ville  et  desicut  venit  in  curiam  meam  ut  illam  partem  disrationaret 
versus  monachos  deHaivilla  et  homines  suos  et  Uli  defecerunt  se  Uluc  veniendi 
ad  diem  suum  inde  sumptum  et  datum ;  ita  ne  super  hoc  amplius  clamorem 
inde  audiam.  T[este]  R[oberto]  de  Haia  per  Thomam  de  Ponte  Episcopi. 
Apud  Rothomagum." 

(15)  H.  rex  Anglie  episcopo  Constanc[iensi]  et  iustic[iis]  Normannie  et 
omnibus  dominis  de  quibus  abbatia  de  Montisburgo  et  ecclesia  sua  tenet,  sa- 
lutem. Precipio  quod  abbas  de  Montisburgo  et  ecclesia  sua  teneant  terras  et 
homines  et  ecclesias  et  decimas  et  molendina  et  consuetudines  et  omnia  sua 

Brix  (Manche) ,  canton  of  Valognes. 
*8  MS.  Lat.  10087,  no-  n;  Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  8426,  8427;  Archives 
Nationales,  JJ.  52,  f.  62,  JJ.  118,  f.  258;  MS.  Grenoble  1395,  f.  9;  Add.  MS.  15605, 
ff.  13V,  14.  In  MSS.  Grenoble  1395,  f.  29,  and  1402,  f.  3sv,  the  writ  begins:  '  H. 
r[ex]  Angl[orum]  iust[iciis]  Constantini  et  ValIon[iaruin]  et  forestariis  de  Bruis.' 
Cf.  Henry's  general  confirmation,  Delisle,  Carlulaire  normand,  no.  737. 
^8  Morsalines  (Manche) ,  canton  of  Quettehou. 

MS.  Lat.  10087,  no.  12. 
"  Ibid.,  no.  13. 

"  Helleville  (Manche),  in  the  canton  of  Les  Pieux,  not  far  from  the  priory  of 
Heauville. 

"  MS.  Lat.  10087,  no.  14. 


HENRY  I  103 

ita  bene  et  in  pace  sicut  abbatia  Fiscan[m],  quod  enim  ad  me  pertinet  in  ea 
omne  concessi  illi  in  elemosina.  T[este]  R[oberto]  de  Ver.  Apud  Rotho- 
m[agum]." 

The  glimpse  of  the  forest  courts  in  no.  1 1  is  interesting.  Pleas 
of  the  forest  are  mentioned  in  Normandy  as  early  as  the  reign  of 
Robert  I,  and  there  is  evidence  of  a  special  forest  law  under  the 
Conqueror ;  ''^  this  writ  shows  the  foresters  rendering  periodic 
account  before  the  king's  justices  and  offering  tallies  as  their 
justification  for  trees  that  have  been  taken  by  the  monks.  The 
regarders  are  also  mentioned  in  Henry's  reign/^  as  are  the  fines 
and  forfeitures  of  the  forest  pleas." 

William  de  Brix  and  Richard  d'Angerville  are  also  found  as 
royal  judges  in  the  Cotentin  in  a  document  relating  to  the  abbey 
of  Saint-Sauveur,  where  the  king's  justices  are  apparently  sitting 
in  the  feudal  court  of  Nigel  the  vicomte.  That  they  might  so  sit 
appears  from  English  practice,  and  there  is  also  evidence  that 
Henry's  officers  exercised  judicial  rights  on  the  lands  of  the 
bishop  of  Bayeux." 

(16)  Sciant  etiam  omnes  quod  monachi  Sancti  Salvatoris  omnes  decimas 
et  maxime  medietatem  campartorum,  quod  est  decima  pro  qua  inceptum 
fuit,  totius  terr§  Nigelli  vicecomitis  et  suorum  omnium  hominum  diracioci- 
naverunt  in  curia  sua,  quibusdam  eius  militibus  et  vavassoribus  contradi- 
centibus,  quibusdam  concedentibus.  Et  ibi  nemine  resistente  sed  omnibus 
adquiescentibus  iudicatum  est  atque  difi&nitum  tam  a  regis  quam  a  Nigelli 
iudicibus  ut  abbatig  extunc  et  deinceps  recta  decima  et  maxime  medietas 

"  MS.Lat.  10087, no.is  (where  the  witness  appears  as 'R.  deWeu'); -tiweWawc 
(H.  8931),!.  iv;  MS.  Lat.  12885,  f.  161;  Add.  MS.  15605,  ff.  13V,  14V,  26;  MS. 
Grenoble  1395,  f .  28v;  vidimus  in  Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  8426, 8427, 8692,  and 
in  Archives  Nationales,  JJ.  52,  f.  62,  JJ.  118,  f.  258.  In  MS.  Grenoble  1402,  f.  35V, 
the  witness  is  given  as  '  Ric.  de  Redvers.' 
Supra,  Chapter  I,  notes  215-218. 
Infra,  note  156. 

''''  Appendix  F,  no.  17. 

William  de  Brix  witnesses  charters  of  Henry  I  for  Saint-fitienne  (Round,  Cal- 
endar, nos.  141 1, 141 2;  Delisle,  Cartulaire  normand,  no.  828).  Richard  d'Angerville 
appears  as  a  witness  in  January  iioi  in  the  Troam  cartulary  (MS.  Lat.  10086,  f. 
149)  and  in  1104  in  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur,  pieces,  no.  46.  Roger  Suhart  was  a  promi- 
nent sub-tenant  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux  in  1133,  H.  F.,  xxiii.  699  f.  (cf.  Tardif, 
Coutumiers  de  Normandie,  i.  i,  p.  112). 

"  Livre  t.oir,  no.  16.  Cf.  the  presence  of  Henry  I's  judges  in  the  court  of  the 
bishop  of  Exeter,  E.  H.  R.,  xiv.  421. 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


campartorum  a  predictis  sine  calumpnia  redderetvir.  Histestibus:  WilJelmo 
de  Bruis,  Ricardo  de  Ansgervilla,  Rogero  de  Riifo  Campo,  Waltero  de 
Hainou,  Rogero  Suhart.^ 

As  regards  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  Henry  I  seems  to  have 
adhered  in  general  to  the  practice  of  his  father,  the  principles  of 
whose  policy,  as  formulated  in  the  canons  of  Lilleboime,  he  con- 
firmed by  the  apposition  of  his  seal.*^  Barons  as  well  as  prelates 
sat  in  the  curiae  which  decided  the  independence  of  Saint-Taurin 
from  Fecamp  and  the  rights  of  Bee  over  Notre-Dame-du-Pre.*^ 
If  the  court  which  establishes  the  right  of  Geoffrey  the  priest  to 
the  church  of  Saint-Sauveur  at  Caen  is  composed  of  bishops  and 
clergy,  it  is  still  the  king's  court  and  the  result  is  transmitted  to 
the  bishop  and  chapter  of  Bayeux  by  royal  writ.*^  For  slaying  in 
violation  of  the  Truce  of  God  the  bishop  now  has  a  fixed  fine  of 
nine  pounds ;  all  personal  property  beyond  this  is  forfeited  to  the 
king,  in  whose  court  the  duel  must  be  held  and  whose  justices 
collect  the  fine  due  the  bishop. 

The  Norman  evidence,  Uke  that  for  England  in  the  same  period, 
does  not  sufiice  to  give  a  clear  picture  of  the  judicial  system,  yet  it 
is  plain  that  there  is  such  a  system  and  that  it  is  creating  a  body  of 
law.  The  justices  issue  writs,  take  sureties,  try  pleas  of  the  crown, 
and  hear  possessory  as  well  as  petitory  actions.  If  we  may  trust 
Henry  I's  charter  for  the  town  of  Verneuil  in  the  form  in  which  it 
has  reached  us,  the  use  of  writs  is  already  so  common  that  they 
are  granted  by  local  officers,  although  the  writ  concerning  land 
stands  on  a  different  footing  from  the  others.**  Very  likely  the 

In  pancarte  of  Saint-Sauveur,  British  Museum,  Add.  Ch.  15281,  formerly 
sealed  ('  sigillum  Rogerii  vicecomitis  ') .  Printed  by  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur,  pieces, 
no.  48,  from  the  cartulary  of  the  abbey  at  Saint-L6,  no.  13,  where  the  words  '  tarn 
a  regis  quam  a  NigeUi  iudicibus  '  are  omitted. 

Teulet,  Layettes  du  Tresor  des  Charles,  i.  25,  no.  22. 
82  Gallia  Christiana,  Lx.  instr.  127;  Appendix  F,  no.  i.   See  supra,  notes  14,  15. 
^  '  In  curia  mea  ante  episcopos  meos  et  ante  clerum  meum  ' :  Livre  noir,  no.  38 
(1107-1123). 

^  Ordinance  of  1135  in  Tres  Ancien  Coulumier,  c.  71;  Roimd,  Calendar,  no.  290; 
cf.  Tardif,  Etude,  p.  48  f.;  infra,  p.  140. 

'  Et  si  aliquis  burgensium  breve  aliquod  a  prelate  pecierit,  illud  habebit  sine 
precio,  preter  terram: '  Ordonnances  des  Rois,  iv.  639,  c.  10.  The  text  of  these 
privileges  is  very  corrupt;  for  prelalo  (cf.  DuCange,  s.  v.)  we  should  probably  read 
pretore  or  preposito. 


HENRY  I 


king's  court  administered  some  form  of  procedure  by  sworn 
inquest;  such  inquests  were  certainly  held  by  Henry's  command, 
and  within  ten  years  of  his  death  they  had  developed  into  regular 
assizes.^ 

Of  the  fiscal  side  of  the  Norman  administration  no  records  have 
survived  anterior  to  the  Exchequer  Roll  of  i  i8o,  but  a  roll  of  1 136 
is  mentioned  in  the  eighteenth  century, and  a  careful  study  of 
the  later  rolls  and  of  the  incidental  evidence  of  earlier  sources 
shows  that  the  essential  features  of  the  Exchequer  of  Henry  II 
existed  imder  Henry  I  and  even  earlier.  As  in  England,  there  was 
no  sharp  separation  between  the  judicial  and  the  financial  duties 
of  the  king's  officers:  in  11 23  the  iustitiarii  regis  took  possession 
of  the  county  of  Evreux  and  the  lands  of  the  rebels  and  added 
them  to  the  king's  demesne,^*  and  after  Robert  of  Belleme  had 
been  removed  from  office  in  11 12  for  failure  to  render  account 
for  the  royal  revenues  in  his  vicomtes  of  Argentan,  Exmes,  and 
Falaise,  we  find  Bishop  John  of  Lisieux  in  charge  of  the  royal 
stores  at  Argentan.*'  The  system  of  collection  and  account  which 
appears  in  the  later  rolls,  being  based  upon  the  vicomte  and 
prevote  and  not  on  the  newer  bailliage  of  the  Angevin  dukes, 
plainly  goes  back  to  the  time  when  these  were  the  important  local 
areas;  and  the  tithes  and  specific  payments  charged  against  the 
farms  can  in  many  instances  be  traced  back  well  into  the  eleventh 
century.^"  Even  the  amotmt  of  the  farm  might  long  remain  un- 
changed, in  spite  of  such  a  general  revision  as  was  made  in  11 76; 
the  forest  of  Roumare,  for  example,  was  let  at  the  same  amount  in 
1 180  as  in  1122.'^  An  excellent  illustration  of  the  continuity  of 
the  Exchequer  arrangements  is  furnished  by  the  following  ex- 
tracts from  a  charter  of  Henry  I  for  Seez  cathedral,  in  which,  as  in 

See  infra,  Chapter  VI.  Ordericus,  iv.  453. 

^  M.  A.  N.,  xvi.  p.  XXX.  Ibid.,  iv.  303,  305. 

Supra,  Chapter  I. 

'1  '  Et  in  parco  meo  Rothomagi  totam  decimam  feni  et  .c.  solidos  de  foresta  mea 
de  Romare,  scUicet  decimam  per  annum: '  charter  of  Henry  I  in  1122  for  Notre- 
Dame-du-Pre,  early  copy  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,/o«<f^  Bonne-Nouvelle, 
box  D;  certified  copy  in  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1245,  f.  37.  In  1180  the  tithe  is  still  100  solidi 
(Stapleton,  i.  75),  On  the  revision  of  1176  see  Powicke,  E.  H.  R.,  xxii.  23, 


I06  NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 

a  charter  for  Bocherville,^^       f^nn  of  the  vicomte  is  shown  to 

have  existed  under  William  the  Conqueror: 

Ipsis  quoque  fratribus  regularibus  damus  et  confirmamus  quindedm  libras 
Rothomagensis  monete  quas  dedi  in  dedicatione  ipsius  ecclesie  in  unoquoque 
anno  habendas,  scilicet  septem  libras  et  decern  solidos  in  teloneo  meo  de 
Falesia  et  septem  libras  et  decern  solidos  in  teloneo  meo  de  Oximis.  .  .  . 
Preterea  duodecim  libras  in  firma  nostra  de  Argentomo  et  viginti  et  imimi 
solidos  in  teloneo  eiusdem  ville  et  sexaginta  solidos  et  decem  denarios  de 
teloneo  meo  de  Oximis  que  dederunt  pater  meus  et  mater  mea  ecclesie 
Sagiensi  ad  victum  canonicorum  duorum,  quod  antiquitus  in  elemosina  statu- 
tum  fuerat.^'  .  .  . 

Normandy  also  offers  an  interesting  parallel  to  England  in  the 

matter  of  its  treasury.  Round  has  shown  the  significance,  for  the 

history  of  fiscal  institutions  in  England,  of  Henry  I's  grants  to  the 

French  monasteries  of  Cluny,  Tiron,  and  Fontevrault,  especially 

the  grant  to  Tiron  of  fifteen  marks  receivable  each  year  de  thesauro 

meo  in  festo  Sancti  Michaelis  Wintonie,  which  under  Henry  II 

became  payable  from  his  treasury  at  the  Exchequer.^*  Now  the 

first  of  these  charters  to  Fontevrault  also  contains  a  charge 

against  the  Norman  revenues,  namely  £ioo  in  the  rent  of  the 

king's  mint  at  Rouen,^^  while  a  stiU  clearer  piece  of  evidence  is 

found  in  a  charter  for  the  leprosery  of  Le  Grand-Beaulieu  at  Char- 

tres.  Issued  originally  between  1121  and  1131  and  renewed  in 

1 135,  this  runs  as  follows: 

(17)  H.  rex  Anglorum  archiepiscopo  Rothomagensi,  episcopis,  abbatibus, 
comitibus,  iusticiariis  Normannie  et  thesaurariis  et  omnibus  fidelibus  suis  per 

^  Round,  no.  198;  Stapleton,  i.  68. 

See  the  charter  in  full  in  Appendix  F,  no.  11  (from  MS.  Alengon  177,  f.  98;  and 
MS.  Lat.  11058,  f.  8).  These  items  are  duly  charged  in  the  roUs  (Stapleton,  i. 
pp.  Ixxxviii,  xcvi,  cxxxii,  39,  50,  103),  except  the  payment  from  the  prepositura  of 
Falaise,  which  is  lo^.  too  small  in  1180  but  appears  in  full  in  1198  {ibid.,  ii.  414). 

^  Calendar,  pp.  xliii-xlv,  nos.  998-1003,  1052,  1053,  1387-1390,  1459,  1460; 
Commune  of  London,  p.  81 ;  Poole,  The  Exchequer  in  the  Twelfth  Century,  p.  40,  note. 
Round,  nos.  1052,  1459. 

Cartulaire  de  la  leproserie  du  Grand-Beaulieu,  ed.  R.  Merlet  and  M.  Jusselin 
(Chartres,  1909,  Collection  de  cartulaires  chartrains,  ii),  no.  i,  from  a  vidimus  of 
1469  in  the  Archives  of  the  Eure-et-Loir.  All  the  essential  phrases  are  repeated  in 
a  charter  of  Stephen,  issued  at  fivreux  in  1136,  of  which  the  original  is  preserved 
in  the  same  archives  (ibid.,  no.  11;  see  infra.  Chapter  IV,  notes  5,  9,  13).  Being 
witnessed  by  the  earl  of  Gloucester  and  Robert  'de  sigillo,'  Henry's  charter  cannot 
be  earlier  than  11 21;  in  its  original  form  it  is  anterior  to  the  general  confirmation 
of  Innocent  II,  13  September  1131  {Cartulaire,  no.  6). 


HENRY  I  107 

Normanniam  constitutis  salutem.  Sciatis  quia  dedi  et  concessi  in  perpetuam 
elemosinam  Deo  et  Sancte  Marie  Magdalene  de  Bello  Loco  et  infirmis  ibidem 
Deo  servientibus,  pro  anima  patrum  et  parentum  meorum  et  pro  remissione 
peccatorum  meorum  et  statu  et  incolumitate  regni  mei  Anglie  et  ducatus  mei 
Normannie,  omni  anno  X  libras  Rothomagensiimi  de  thesauro  meo,  et 
semper  eas  simul  habent  ad  festum  Sancti  Michaelis  quando  firme  et 
pecunia  mea  colliguntur,  et  ipsis  thesaurariis  meis  precipio  ut  eas  eis  omni 
anno  et  termino  prenominato  sine  disturbacione  omni  et  occasione  liberent. 
Hoc  itaque  donum  meum  illi  ecclesie  et  fratribus  infirmis  sine  fine  mansurum 
regia  auctoritate  statu©  et  adeo  michi  collata  potestate  inviolatum  permanere 
confirmo. 

Testibus  lohanne  episcopo  Lexoviorum  et  Roberto  de  sigillo  et  Rogerio 
de  Fiscanno  et  Roberto  comite  de  Gloecestrie  et  R[icardo]  filio  comitis  et 
R[oberto]  de  Ver  et  Roberto  de  Curci,  et  Gaufrido  filio  Pagani  et  Gaufrido 
de  Magnavilla  et  Roberto  de  Novo  Burgo  et  Willelmo  de  Roumaro.  Apud 
Rothomagum.  Anno  ab  incarnatione  Domini  M°C°XXX°  quinto  hec 
carta  renovata  fuit,  quia  prior  igne  combusta  erat. 

Here  we  have  a  Norman  treasury  as  well  as  Norman  treasurers, 
one  of  whom  can  probably  be  identified  in  the  witness  Roger  of 
Fecamp,''^  and  we  learn  that,  as  in  England,  Michaehnas  was  the 
term  when  the  king's  '  farms  and  money  are  collected.'  No 
place  is  mentioned,  but  the  later  history  of  the  endowment  and 
the  connection  of  a  treasurership  with  a  canonry  in  Rouen  cathe- 
dral make  it  probable  that  the  treasury  here  mentioned  was  at 
Rouen.  Stephen  repeats  all  the  provisions  of  his  uncle's  grant, 
but  Henry  II  makes  it  an  annual  charge,  still  at  Michaelmas, 
against  the  vicomte  of  Rouen,  where  it  appears  in  the  Exchequer 
Rolls. Treasure  was  stored  at  other  centers  also,  for  at  Henry's 
death  we  know  that  the  bulk  of  his  treasure  was  at  Falaise,'"" 
and  imder  Henry  II  Caen  and  Argentan  were  used  for  the  same 
purpose. The  custom  of  keeping  treasure  in  various  royal 
castles  is  not,  however,  inconsistent  with  a  single  administration 
of  the  treasury  of  receipt  and  disbursement. 

The  English  Pipe  Roll  of  1130  shows  the  Norman  treasury  re- 
ceiving payments  on  English  accounts  and  certifying  credits  by 

"  See  below,  notes  iig,  120. 
"  See  the  following  paragraphs. 

Cartulaire  du  Gratid-Beaulieu,  nos.  11,  28,  65;  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  126; 
Delisle-Berger,  no.  434;  Stapleton,  i.  70. 

Ordericus,  v.  50;  Robert  of  Torigni,  i-  200  f. 
Chapter  V,  note  115. 
1"*  For  England  cf.  Round,  introduction  to  Pipe  Roll  28  Henry  II,  p.  xxiv. 


io8 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


royal  writs, the  officers  who  receive  the  money  being  Osbert  de 

Pont  de  I'Arche  and  Nigel  nephew  of  the  bishop  of  Salisbury. 

Osbert  held  a  ministerium  earner^  curi^.^'^*  Nigel  is  styled  treasurer 

in  two  documents  which  he  witnessed  at  Rouen,!"^  but  though  he 

was  with  the  king  in  Normandy  through  the  early  months  of 

1 13 1,  he  accompanied  him  to  England  in  the  summer  of  that 

year/"^  and  it  does  not  appear  that  his  duties  or  Osbert's  were 

confined  to  Normandy.^"^  Whatever  the  exact  relation  of  Nigel 

'  the  treasurer  '  to  the  Norman  treasury,  there  was  throughout 

the  twelfth  century  a  special  treasurer  for  Normandy.  In  the 

Exchequer  Rolls  of  11 80  and  later  the  tithes  of  the  Lieuvin,  the 

pays  d'Auge,  and  certain  other  districts  are  a  fixed  charge  upon 

the  farms  for  the  benefit  of  the  treasurer  of  Normandy,'"*  a 

natural  extension  to  one  of  the  royal  chaplains  of  the  practice  of 

assigning  the  tithe  of  a  vicomte  to  a  religious  house.  That  this 

arrangement  goes  back  to  the  reign  of  Henry  I  appears  from  the 

following  passage  in  Stephen's  confirmation  of  the  possessions  of 

Sainte-Barbe-en-Auge  in  1137: 

Confirmavi  .  .  .  decimam  de  vicecomitatu  de  Lesvin  et  Algia  qug  sunt 
de  capellaria  mea  quas  Gislebertus  de  Ebroicis  et  Robert  us  filius  eius  capellani 
regis  Henrici  et  mei  dederunt  et  concesserunt  eidem  §cclesi§. 

It  is  not  here  stated  that  Gilbert  of  Evreux  and  his  son  were 
treasurers,  but  we  know  from  other  sources  that  they  were.  In  the 

Pp.  7,  13,  37,  39,  54,  63.  1"  Ibid.,  p.  37. 

Round,  Calendar,  no.  1388;  and  the  following  conclusion  of  a  charter  of  the 
chapter  of  Chartres,  issued,  as  appears  from  the  lists  in  R.  Merlet,  Dignilaires  de 
I'eglise  Notre-Dame  de  Chartres,  subsequently  to  11 26:  '  Postea  vero  Mauricius 
et  Petrus,  ahi  fratres,  concesserunt  hoc  ipsum  apud  Rotomagiun  et  vadimonia  sue 
concessionis  transmiserunt  per  manus  domni  Henrici  prepositi,  videntibus  et  audi- 
entibus  Andrea  de  Baldement,  Willelmo  de  Fraxineto,  Nigello  thesaurario,  Heinrico 
de  Richeborc,  Radulfo  de  Mercato,  Ansoldo  de  Bellovidere  canonico,  Guillelmo  de 
la  Ventona,  Roberto  de  la  Haie  '  (MS.  Lat.  5183  I,  p.  90,  copied  from  the  original). 

Round,  Calendar,  nos.  122-124,  287,  373,  1388;  Sarum  Documents,  p.  7;  Ap- 
pendix F,  no.  10;  Monaslicon,  iv.  538,  vi.  240,  viii.  1271;  E.  E.  R..  xxiii.  726. 

1""  Cf.  the  document  witnessed  by  them,  E.  H.  R.,  xiv.  422,  which  was  probably 
issued  m  England.  Hubert  Hall,  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  p.  ccc,  seeks  to  identify 
them  with  the  mililes  episcopi  of  the  Conslilulio  dotnus  regis. 

"8  Stapleton,  i.  pp.  xciii,  cxxi,  40,  77,  90,  99,  100,  118,  146,  157,  167,  168,  246, 
ii.  461,  549,  560.   Cf.  infra.  Chapter  V,  note  139. 

"9  Original,  or  pretended  original,  in  the  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  fonds  Samte- 
Barbe;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  570. 


HENRY  I 


109 


history  of  the  foundation  of  Sainte-Barbe,"°  written  at  the  end  of 
the  twelfth  century,  we  read: 

Fuit  in  diebus  superioris  Henrici  regis  Anglorum  quidam  clericus  in  urbe 
Rothomagensi  nomine  Gillebertus,  ex  clericali  et  militari  prosapia  editus. 
Hie  et  Rothomagensis  ecclesie  precentor  et  prefati  regis  thesaurarius  erat. 
Cum  autem  filios  quinque  haberet  iuvenes  egregios  literis  deditos  et  in  curia 
regis  nominatos,  primogenitum  Willelmum  sibi  annis  iam  maturus  in  the- 
saurarii  officio  ex  regis  beneplacito  subrogavit.  In  quo  etiam  officio  reliqui 
fratres,  quamdiu  superstites  fuerunt,  ac  si  iure  hereditario  sibi  invicem  suc- 
cesserunt.  Guillelmus  igitur  patris  potitus  officio,  cum  pro  multiplici  preclare 
indolis  probitate  regis  et  procerum  gratiam  et  familiaritatem  haberet,  tan- 
dem spreta  mundi  maleblandientis  prosperitate,  spreto  iuventutis  ilore, 
spreto  patre  dulcique  fratrum  consorcio,  spreto  eciam  latere  regis  Anglorum, 
regi  militare  disposuit  angelorum. 

Here  we  have  six  successive  treasurers.  Gilbert  must  have 
given  up  the  office  some  years  before  11 28,  when  his  son  William 
'  the  Treasurer,'  having  lived  as  a  hermit  for  a  time  after  his  re- 
tirement from  the  court,  was  made  prior  of  the  newly  organized 
community  of  Sainte-Barbe  by  its  patron  Rabel  of  Tancarville. 
Gilbert  died  before  1137,"^  ^.nd  his  fief  of  Agy,  near  Bayeux,  had 
been  in  possession  of  Sainte-Barbe  since  1133  or  earlier."^  Wil- 
liam's successor  as  treasurer  was  Robert,  secundus  natus  post 

MS.  1643  of  the  library  of  Sainte-Genevieve,  f.  57,  printed  by  R.  N.  Sauvage, 
La  chronique  de  Sainle-Barbe-en-Auge  (Caen,  1907),  pp.  ig-20. 

A  strict  interpretation  of  Stephen's  charter  might  make  Gilbert  one  of  his 
chaplains,  but  that  is  out  of  the  question.  '  Gislebertus  cantor  '  witnesses  a  charter 
of  Archbishop  Geoffrey  in  11 19  (MS.  Lat.  17044,  f.  19),  but  this  may  have  been  the 
Gislebertus  cantor  who  witnesses  Archbishop  Hugh's  charters  for  Saint-Georges  de 
Bocherville  in  1131  (MS.  Rouen  1227,  ff.  45,  46),  for  Bee  in  1141  (MS.  Lat.  13905, 
f.  90),  for  Beaubec  in  1142  (Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure, /on</5  Beaubec),  and 
for  Lire  in  1145  (Archives  of  the  Eure,  H.  438).  As  Gilbert  the  treasurer  was  of 
clerical  descent,  he  may  be  that '  Gislebertus  filius  Rotberti  archidiaconi  Ebroicen- 
sis  '  who  offered  his  son  Hugh  to  Jumieges  in  1099  (Le  Prevost,  Eure,  iii.  46).  He 
can  hardly  have  been  the  '  Gislebertus  filius  Bernardi '  who  was  a  canon  of  Rouen 
in  1075  (Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  G.  8739). 

1"  '  In  Baiocassino  apud  Ageium  terram  de  patrimonio  Gisleberti  de  Ebrcis 
quam  filii  eius  dederunt  ecclesif  S.  Barbarg  pro  anima  eiusdem  Gisleberti  qui  ibi 
iacet: '  charter  of  Hugh,  archbishop  of  Rouen,  1137,  confirming  the  f>ossessions  of 
Sainte-Barbe;  original  in  Archives  of  the  Calvados, /owtf 5  Sainte-Barbe.  The  posses- 
sions at  Agy  are  described  more  exactly  in  original  charters  of  Henry  II  and  Philip, 
bishop  of  Bayeux,  preserved  in  the  same  fonds;  cf.  Calendar  of  Charier  Rolls, 
iii.  308;  Sauvage,  in  Memoires  de  V Academie  de  Caen,  1908,  p.  11. 

Inquest  of  military  tenants  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux  in  1133,  H.  F.,  xxiii.  701. 


no 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


Guillelmum,  vir  in  regno  nominatissimus,^^*  whom  we  have  already 
found  sitting  in  the  Norman  Exchequer. He  must  have  been  in 
office  in  1 1 28  and  have  continued  as  late  as  1136,  since  he  was  a 
chaplain  of  Stephen.  Of  the  other  sons  we  know  nothing  save 
that  one  was  named  Richard  "®  and  that  two  of  the  prior's 
brothers  followed  him  to  Sainte-Barbe.  ^"  The  Master  Thomas 
of  Evreux,  who  app>ears  as  a  canon  of  Rouen  in  11 65  and  subse- 
quently,"* doubtless  belonged  to  this  family.  Rogerus  thesaurarius 
witnesses  a  royal  charter  at  Rouen  in  1135,"'  but  he  is  probably 
to  be  identified  with  Roger,  nephew  of  the  abbot  of  Fecamp,  who 
was  a  chaplain  of  Henry  I  and  Stephen. 

The  treasurer  was  not  the  only  chaplain  to  receive  regular 
allowances  from  the  Norman  revenues,  but  the  sources  now  avail- 
able do  not  permit  us  to  follow  the  others  back  or  ascertain  their 
administrative  duties.  The  dominica  capellaria  of  Saint-Cande-le- 
Vieux  at  Rouen,  for  example,  tempts  our  curiosity;  its  exemption 
from  the  diocese  of  Rouen  requires  explanation,  and  the  fact  that 
the  authority  of  the  bishop  of  Lisieux  over  it  seems  to  have  been 
established  under  John  the  justiciar  suggests  some  connection 
between  these  chaplains  and  the  royal  administration. The 
whole  subject  of  the  royal  chapel  is  one  of  great  obscurity,  for 
England  as  well  as  for  Normandy,  and  any  facts  which  may  be 
brought  forward  concerning  it  are  likely  to  throw  Hght  upon  the 
history  of  the  administrative  system.  The  scantiness  of  the  Nor- 
man material  for  the  early  twelfth  century  likewise  leaves  us  in 

Sauvage,  Chronique,  p.  20.  Supra,  notes  18,  20. 

Sauvage,  loc.  ciL,  p.  36.  He  is  doubtless  the  '  Ricardus  Ebroicensis  canonicus 
noster  '  who  appears,  under  15  January,  in  the  obituary  of  Rouen  cathedral:  H.  F., 
xxiii.  3S9A. 

Sauvage,  loc.  cit.,  p.  25. 

Cartulary  of  Foucarmont  (MS.  Rouen  1224),  f.  30  (1165);  MS.  Lat.  17135, 
p.  22  (1172);  L.  de  Glanville,  Hisloire  du  prkure  de  Saint-Lo,  ii.  326  (1177); 
Poupardin,  Charles  de  S.-Germain-des-Pres,  no.  156. 

Round,  Calendar,  no.  590. 

Ibid.,  nos.  124,  289,  295,  541,  1055;  Ramsey  Cartulary,  i.  250;  Monasticon, 
vii.  700. 

The  whole  history  of  this  exemption  is  obscure.  See  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  42, 
774;  Toussaint  Duplessis,  Description  de  la  Haute-Normandie,  ii.  121;  H.  de 
Fonneville,  Hisloire  de  I' eueche-comte  de  Lisieux,  i,  pp.  xii-xvi;  Stapleton,  i,  pp. 
cxxx,  cxxxvii. 


HENRY  I 


III 


the  dark  with  respect  to  other  members  of  that  "  official  class 
working  in  the  interests  of  the  crown"  whose  activity  at  Win- 
chester and  elsewhere  has  been  so  well  illustrated  by  Round's 
studies. "YYit  following  document  of  1133-1135  introduces  us 
to  two  such  royal  clerks: 

(18)  H.  rex  Anglorum  archiepiscopo  Rothomagensi  et  iusticiis  et  baro- 
nibus  suis  de  Normannia  et  vic[ecomiti]  et  burgensibus  et  ministris  suis  de 
Rothomago  salutem.  Sciatis  quod  concede  Ojtio  episcopo  Ebroicensi  terrain 
et  domum  illam  de  Rothomago  que  fuit  Willelmi  Bruni  clerici  mei  quam  ipse 
emit  ad  opus  ecclesie  sue  de  Sancta  Maria  de  Ebroicis  de  Petro  filio  ipsius  W. 
Bruni  et  Rannulfo  scriptore  meo  consensu  per  .c.  sol[idos]  Roth[oma- 
gensium]  quos  eis  inde  dedit.  Et  ideo  volo  et  precipio  quod  ipse  episcopus 
et  ecclesia  sua  bene  et  in  pace  illam  teneant  et  libere  sicut  predictus  Willel- 
mus  unquam  melius  tenuit  et  honorabilius.  Testibus  Adel[ulfo]  episcopo 
CarIol[ensi]  et  comite  Leglrec[estrie]  et  Rog[ero]  de  Fisc[anno]  et  Willelmo 
de  Ely  et  Radidio  de  Hasting[is],  apud  Rothomagum.'^^ 

William  Brown  had  been  aUve  in  1130,  when  he  appears  as  a 
considerable  landholder  in  Suffolk/^^  and  had  held  lands  in  Win- 
chester before  1 1 1 5  in  conjunction  with  Wilham  Fitz  Odo,  prob- 
ably the  constable  of  that  name.^^^  Roger  Brun  occurs  in  the 
midst  of  a  group  of  king's  clerks  in  another  document  of  this 
period. 1"  Apparently  we  have  here  another  family  of  royal  clerks, 
and  one  cannot  help  surmising  some  relationship  with  that  Master 
Thomas  Brown,  also  a  landowner  in  Winchester, who  makes  his 
appearance  in  1137  at  the  court  of  Roger  of  Sicily,  where  he  rises 
to  high  position  in  the  judicial  and  fiscal  administration,  and  is 
then  recalled  by  Henry  II  to  a  position  of  '  no  mean  authority  '  in 
the  English  Exchequer.     \i  jg      p^j-^  Qf  our  present  purpose  to 

>22  Compare,  besides  his  article  on  Bernard  the  Scribe,  in  E.  H.  R.,  xiv.  417- 
430,  the  Victoria  History  of  Hampshire,  i.  430,  536;  and  R.  L.  Poole,  The  Exchequef 
in  the  Twelfth  Century,  p.  123  f. 

'^'^  Cartulary  G.  6  has  '  scriptore  concessu  meo.' 

fivreux  cartularies  in  the  Archives  of  the  Eure,  G.  122,  f.  41V,  no.  201 ;  G.  123, 
no.  193;  G.  6,  p.  17,  no.  11;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  289. 

Pipe  Roll  31  Henry  I,  p.  99.  Ranulf  the  scribe  held  lands  in  Berks:  ibid., 
p.  126. 

Liber  Winton.,  ff.  3b,  12b. 

E.  H.  R.,  xiv.  428;  cf.  Ecclesiastical  Documents,  ed.  Hunter  (Camden  Society), 

p.  SI- 

Pipe  Roll  I  Richard  I,  p.  205. 

I  have  brought  together  the  facts  concerning  Thomas  Brown  in  an  article 


112  NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 

enter  into  the  controversy  respecting  the  relation  of  the  Anglo- 
Norman  Exchequer  and  the  Sicilian  diwan  to  which  these  facts  in 
Thomas's  biography  have  given  rise.  In  view  of  what  is  now 
known  concerning  its  Byzantine  and  Saracen  antecedents  it  can 
no  longer  be  maintained  that  the  Sicihan  fiscal  system  was  im- 
ported from  England  by  Thomas  Brown ;  but  it  is  possible  that  he 
may  have  exerted  some  influence  in  matters  of  detail,  and  it  is 
certainly  worth  noting  that,  if  we  are  justified  in  connecting 
him  with  the  clerks  of  the  same  name  under  Henry  I,  he  probably 
had  some  acquaintance  with  the  workings  of  Anglo-Norman 
administration  before  he  entered  the  service  of  the  Sicihan  king. 

Precisely  to  what  extent  Normandy  and  England  had  sep- 
arately organized  governments  under  Henry  I,  it  is  not  possible 
to  say  without  further  genealogical  study  and  a  more  careful 
examination  of  the  documentary  e\idence.  Wholly  distinct  the 
two  administrations  cannot  have  been,  for  so  long  as  kingship  was 
ambulatory  and  the  government  centered  in  the  royal  household, 
a  considerable  number  of  the  king's  ofiicers  must  have  been  com- 
mon to  the  kingdom  and  the  duchy.  Thus  Wilham  of  Tancarville, 
though  his  castle  was  in  Normandy  and  though  he  received  a  fixed 
grant  from  the  Norman  treasury,  is  styled  '  chamberlain  of  Eng- 
land and  Normandy,'  and  the  seneschalship  of  Humphrey  de 
Bohun  was  likewise  common  to  both  countries. William  Brown 
we  have  just  seen  as  a  landholder  on  both  sides  of  the  Channel; 
Simon  the  dispenser  is  with  the  king  in  Normandy  between  1 1 1 7 
and  II 20  and  in  England  in  1130.^^2  js^ot  only  the  great  body  of 
personal  servants,  but  such  departments  as  the  chancery  and  the 
chapel,  certainly  followed  the  king.  Thus  in  the  transfretation 
of  1 1 20,  of  which  the  chroniclers  have  left  some  record  because  of 
the  loss  of  the  White  Ship,  the  king  was  accompanied  by  chap- 
on  England  and  Sicily  in  the  Twelfth  Century,  E.  H.  R.,  xxvi.  438-443,  where  (pp. 
651-655)  the  Sicilian  fiscal  system  is  also  discussed  (1911). 

Annals  of  Saint-Wandrille,  Hisloire  litteraire  de  la  France,  xxxii.  204;  cf. 
Walter  Map,  De  Nugis,  ed.  M.  R.  James,  p.  244.  For  the  grant  from  the  treasury 
see  Monasticon,  vii.  1066;  Stapleton,  i.  68,  157. 

"1  Ancient  Charters  (Pipe  Roll  Society),  no.  27. 

Round,  King's  Serjeants,  p.  189;  Pipe  Roll  31  Henry  I,  pp.  5,  79. 


HENRY  I 


lains,  dapiferi,  camerarii,  and  pincerne}^^  The  fiscal  administra- 
tion was  naturally  more  stationary  than  the  household  proper,  for 
the  collection  and  disbursement  of  the  revenue  had  to  go  on  in  the 
king's  absence;  and,  while  we  know  even  less  of  the  Norman 
treasury  than  of  the  treasury  at  Winchester,  there  was  at  least  a 
separate  treasurer  and  probably  some  other  permanent  officials. 
Yet  in  this  department  too  a  coimection  was  maintained  between 
the  kingdom  and  the  duchy.  Treasure  was  carried  back  and  forth, 
not  only  with  the  king,  as  on  his  return  from  Normandy  in  1 1 20,^^* 
but  also  at  other  times,  a  considerable  part  of  the  large  sum  stored 
at  Falaise  at  the  time  of  Henry's  death  having  been  recently 
brought  from  England. Such  transshipments  must  have  been 
accompanied,  as  under  Henry  II, by  royal  ofiicers  —  indeed  the 
possession  of  the  castle  of  Porchester  by  one  of  the  chamberlains 
of  the  Exchequer  may  have  been  connected  with  this  process  of 
transfer  —  while  some  system  of  balancing  accounts  between 
the  two  treasuries  is  involved  in  the  practice  of  receiving  pay- 
ments on  one  side  of  the  Channel  to  apply  on  accounts  due  on  the 
other.  Intercommunication  of  this  sort  is,  of  course,  quite  com- 
patible with  the  existence  of  two  separate  corps  of  officials,  but 
the  appearance  in  Normandy  of  the  two  chamberlains,  Geoffrey 
de  Clinton  and  Robert  Mauduit,  as  well  as  such  fiscal  officers  as 

133  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle;  Henry  of  Huntingdon,  p.  242;  William  of  Malmes- 
bury,  Gesta  Regum,  ii.  497.  Ordericus  (iv.  415-419)  mentions  by  name  William, 
one  of  the  four  principal  chaplains,  William  de  Pirou  dapifer,  and  Gisulf  the  scribe. 
Cf.  the  transfretation  of  1130,  John  of  Worcester  (ed.  Weaver),  p.  33. 

There  was  also  a  separate  Norman  mint  at  Rouen,  and  pleas  concerning  the 
coinage  were  held  apiid  arcam  monele:  Round,  Calendar,  nos.  1053,  1459;  Pipe 
RoU  31  Henry  I,  p.  122;  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  157. 

"6  Ordericus,  iv.  412,  419. 

'36  Ihid.,  V.  50;  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  201. 

E.  g.,  Pipe  RoU  6  Henry  II,  p.  47;  13  Henry  II,  p.  193  f.;  21  Henry  II,  p.  200. 

138  Round,  in  Victoria  History  of  Hampshire,  i.  432;  Ancestor,  v.  207-210.  The 
history  of  this  Mauduit  chamberlainship  is,  in  spite  of  Round's  researches,  not  yet 
entirely  clear.  It  is  not  true  that,  as  the  editors  of  the  Oxford  edition  of  the  Dialogns 
suggest  (p.  20) ,  the  office  of  William  Mauduit  was  acquired  by  William  de  Pont  de 
I'Arche  in  1130,  for,  apart  from  the  fact  that  William  Mauduit  would  not  be  men- 
tioned in  the  Constilutio  domits  regis  if  he  was  no  longer  in  ofiBce,  we  find  him  re- 
ceiving money  in  the  camera  curie  in  1130  (Pipe  RoU,  p.  134)  and  witnessing  as 
chamberlain  in  the  summer  of  1131  {infra,  Appendix  F,  no.  11;  cf.  Round,  Calen- 
dar, no,  107). 


114  NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 

Nigel  nepos  episcopi  and  Osbert  de  Pont  de  I'Arche,  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  the  two  administrations  were  not  wholly  dis- 
tinct."^ In  judicial  matters  the  chief  hnk  between  the  kingdom 
and  the  duchy  was  the  king,  although  the  officers  who  came  with 
him  from  England  might  also  constitute  an  important  element  in 
the  meetings  of  the  Norman  curia.  In  general,  however,  the  Nor- 
man judicial  system  possessed  a  considerable  measure  of  distinct- 
ness. The  cases  in  which  the  king  sat  were  more  likely  to  leave  a 
record  in  the  charters,  yet  we  have  seen  abundant  evidence  of  the 
activity  of  the  courts  in  his  absence  and  of  the  existence,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  local  officers,  of  a  body  of  Norman  justices,  among 
whom  the  justiciar  and  the  two  seneschals  stand  out  with  such 
prominence  as  to  suggest  that  they  constituted  the  nucleus  of  the 
Norman  central  government. 

Our  conception  of  Henry's  Norman  household  will  depend  in 
large  measure  upon  our  interpretation  of  that  curious  and  unique 
record,  the  Constitutio  domus  regis,  which  contains  a  detailed  Ust 
of  the  officers  of  the  court  with  their  daily  stipends  and  allowances 
of  food,  wine,  and  candles.^'"'  Drawn  up  not  long  after  Henry's 
death, this  is  based  upon  the  conditions  of  his  reign  and  is  thus 
much  the  earliest  of  the  many  household  ordinances  of  European 
royalty.  It  is  true  that  in  its  present  form  it  is  not  so  much  an 
ordinance  as  an  attempt  at  an  up-to-date  account  of  the  royal 
household;  but  the  word  constitutio  points  to  a  formal  act,  and  the 
consistent  use  of  the  future  tense  shows  that  in  the  body  of  the 
document  we  are  dealing,  not  with  a  mere  description,  but  with 
the  language  of  one  who  commands  and  prescribes.  If  we  call  to 
mind  the  contemporary  mention  of  Henry's  reform  in  the  prac- 
tices of  his  courtiers, and  particularly  the  specific  statement  of 

"5  Cf.  introduction  to  Oxford  edition  of  Dialogus,  p.  ig,  note  3. 

Liber  Niger  Scaccarii,  ed.  Hearne,  pp.  341-359  (the  best  text) ;  Red  Book  of 
the  Exchequer,  ed.  Hall,  pp.  807-813.  For  modem  discussions,  see  Hall's  introduc- 
tion, pp.  cclxxx\'i-ccci;  Bateson,  Mediaeval  England,  pp.  5-8;  Poole,  The  Exchequer 
in  the  Tuelflh  Cenlnry,  pp.  94-99;  Roiuid,  The  King's  Serjeants  and  Officers  of 
State,  especially  p.  54  ff. 

1^  Whether  under  Stephen,  as  is  generally  assumed,  or  in  the  early  j^ears  of 
Henry  II  (cf.  Liebermann,  Ueber  Pseudo-Cnuts  Conslitutiones  de  Foresta,  p.  25) 
does  not  greatly  affect  our  purpose. 

Eadmer,  p.  192  f.;  William  of  Malmesbury,  Gesta  Regum,  ii.  487.   The  re- 


HENRY  I 


Walter  Map  that  he  established  scriptas  domus  et  familie  sue  con- 
suetudines,  including  fixed  liveries  for  the  barons  of  his  curia  and 
regular  allowances  for  the  members  of  his  household,"^  we  shall 
not  hesitate  to  identify  this  reform  with  the  original  nucleus  of  the 
Constitutio,  so  far  as  this  can  be  separated  from  glosses  and  later 
additions.  Some  elements  were  doubtless  still  older,  since  a  charter 
of  the  Conqueror"^  in  1070-1071  mentions  court  liveries,  demaine 
and  common  bread,  candles  and  candle  ends,  such  as  appear  in  the 
Constitutio,  and  since  many  of  the  serjeanties  of  the  Constitutio 
can  be  followed  back  as  far  as  Domesday.  As  regards  place,  the 
Constitutio  contains  no  specific  reference  to  either  side  of  the 
Channel,  save  for  the  mention  of  the  modius  Rotomagensis  as  a 
standard  of  measurement,  and  this  phrase  has  been  used  as  an 
argument  both  for  and  against  the  compilation  of  the  document 
in  Normandy.i*^  Clearly  its  scope  cannot  be  restricted  to  the 
duchy,  for  most  of  the  persons  therein  mentioned  are  found  in 
possession  of  lands  and  ofi&ces  in  England,  and  the  Pipe  Roll  of 
1 130  not  only  shows  two  of  the  chief  men  of  the  household  receiv- 
ing the  per  diem  allowance  fixed  in  the  Constitutio, ^'^^  but  also 

form  probably  antedates  11 21,  since  Robert  Peche  before  becoming  bishop  'in 
cura  panum  ac  f)otus  strenue  ministrare  solebat ':  Florence  of  Worcester,  ii.  75. 
Another  larderer,  Roger,  had  been  made  bishop  in  iioi:  William  of  Malmesbury, 
Gesta  Ponlificutn,  p.  303. 

'  Scriptas  habebat  domus  et  familie  sue  consuetudines  quas  ipse  statuerat: 
domus,  ut  semper  esset  omnibus  habunda  copiis  et  certissimas  haberet  vices  a 
longe  provisas  et  communiter  auditas  ubicunque  manendi  vel  movendi,  et  ad  cam 
venientes  singuli  quos  barones  vocant  terre  primates  statutas  ex  liberalitate  regis 
liberationes  haberent;  familie,  ne  quis  egeret  sed  perciperet  quisquis  certa  don- 
aria.'  Be  Nugis  Curialium,  ed.  James,  p.  219  (ed.  Wright,  p.  210). 
1"  Davis,  Regesla,  no.  60. 

The  Norman  view  is  maintained  by  Stapleton,  Magni  Roluli,  i,  p.  xxi; 
Hall,  Red  Book,  p.  ccc;  id.,  Studies  in  English  Official  Historical  Documents,  p.  163. 
Poole,  p.  95,  argues  that  if  the  household  was  settled  in  Normandy,  there  would 
have  been  no  need  to  call  upon  the  bakers  to  spend  /^od.  in  procuring  the  measure; 
but  it  seems  clear  that  the  reference  is  rather  to  the  purchase  of  a  given  quantity  of 
grain.  If  that  is  the  correct  interpretation,  we  have  an  illustration  of  fixed  prices 
for  the  court's  purchases,  such  as  seem  to  be  implied  in  the  passages  of  Eadmer 
and  William  of  Malmesbury  cited  in  note  142. 

Pipe  Roll  31  Henry  I,  pp.  129,  131,  140,  where  the  liveries  of  the  chancellor 
and  William  de  Pont  de  I'Arche  the  chamberlain  are  reckoned  at  55.  a  day.  When 
officers  served  in  the  curia,  they  were  paid  from  the  camera  curie,  so  that  their 
wages  do  not  appear  in  the  Pipe  Rolls,  where  they  are  mentioned  for  the  most 


ii6 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


mentions  most  of  its  lesser  members  —  ushers,  bakers,  larderers, 
cup-bearers,  butterymen,  naperers,  and  archers,  the  velterer  and 
the  master  of  the  harriers,  hosarius,  scutellarius ,  bordarius,  corti- 
narius,^"  the  cook  who  pays  half  a  mark  of  gold  for  his  father's 
office,^**  down  to  the  sumpter-man  and  the  Serjeants  of  the  chapel 
and  the  kitchen. All  this,  however,  does  not  show  that  these 
were  members  of  a  purely  EngUsh  household,  for  the  king  had 
spent  nearly  the  whole  of  this  fiscal  year  in  England,  and  there  is 
no  record  how  many  of  them  accompanied  him  to  Normandy  in 
September. 

It  is  impossible,  from  the  records  now  extant,  to  follow  out  the 
ofi&cers  of  the  Constitutio  on  Norman  soil,  for  we  have  no  Ex- 
chequer RoUs  for  this  period  and  little  other  material  of  the  sort 
which  has  enabled  the  patient  learning  and  ingenuity  of  Round  to 
identify  so  many  of  the  king's  Serjeants  in  England.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  any  such  body  of  conquered  land  as  in  England,  it  is 
likely  that  in  Normandy  the  officers  of  state  were  less  freely  re- 
warded by  land  and  were  dependent  in  large  measure  upon  the 
fixed  endowments  from  the  ducal  revenues  of  which  we  find  traces 
here  and  there.  Thus  Henry's  treasurer,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
had  the  tithes  of  certain  vicomtes,^^"  and  we  know  that  his  cham- 
berlain of  the  family  of  Tancarville  had  a  fixed  grant  of  £60  from 
the  farm  of  Lillebonne.^^i  Similar  charges  in  the  roll  of  1180  in 
favor  of  the  dispenser  of  Lillebonne  and  the  duke's  larderer 
may  also  have  an  early  origin. Normandy  was  familiar  viith  the 

part  as  excused  from  Danegeld,  the  amount  remitted  serving  as  an  accurate  meas- 
ure of  the  hides  which  they  owned  in  each  county.    Cf.  Poole,  Exchequer,  p.  125. 

Pipe  Roll,  pp.  I,  4,  IS  f.,  22  f.,  41,  45  f.,51,  56,  59,  61,  72  f.,  75  f.,  80,  83,  86,99, 
102,  104,  107,  126;  and  Round,  King's  Serjeants,  under  these  words. 

Pipe  Roll,  p.  84.  If  the  cook  Radulphus  de  Marchia  of  the  Constitutio  is  the 
Radulfus  de  Marceio  of  St.  Paul's  documents,  he  was  dead  before  1127  (9  Historical 
MSS.  Commission,  p.  65  f.). 

Pipe  Roll,  pp.  102,  107  f.,  126;  cf.  E.  H.  R.,  xiv.  423. 

Supra,  note  108;  cf.  infra.  Chapter  V,  note  139. 

Monasticon,  vii.  1066;  Stapleton,  i.  68.  Stapleton,  i.  68. 

"3  Ibid.,  i,  pp.  Ixxxiii,  30,  99,  274,  ii.  471,  572,  573.  As  the  alms  here  charged 
against  the  farm  of  Valognes,  like  the  other  fixed  charges  in  the  roUs,  appear  to  be 
arranged  in  chronological  order,  the  assigimient  to  the  larderer  is  probably  earlier 
than  the  grant  to  the  chapelry  of  Valognes,  transferred  to  the  abbey  De  Voto  by 
an  early  charter  of  Henry  II  (Delisle-Berger,  no.  135). 


HENRY  I 


117 


system  of  daily  allowances  described  in  the  Constitutio,  for  Wace, 
who  would  carry  this  back  to  the  time  of  Richard  the  Good  and 
Robert  I,  speaks  of  the  duke's  provision 

De  chandeile  e  de  vin  e  d'  altre  livreisun,^^ 

and  tells  us  that  the  dignitaries  of  the  household 

Chascun  iur  orent  livreisuns 

E  as  granz  festes  dras  et  duns.'^^ 

This  is  confirmed  and  amplified  by  a  curious  charter  which  bears 
the  royal  style  of  Henry  II  but  on  the  ground  of  its  witnesses  is 
probably  to  be  assigned  to  the  reign  of  his  grandfather.^^®  This 
document,  which  gives  us  the  most  concrete  account  of  the  Nor- 
man household,  grants  to  Odoin  de  Malpalu,  the  king's  Serjeant, 
along  with  various  lands  and  rights, 

*  the  whole  ministry  of  the  king's  panetaria,  with  all  its  appurtenances, 
with  livery  in  the  court  every  day  that  the  king  is  at  Rouen,  namely  four 
pennyworth  of  bread  from  the  depensa,  and  one  sextary  of  knight's  wine  from 
the  cellar,  and  four  portions  from  the  kitchen,  one  of  them  a  large  one,  two  of 
the  size  for  knights,  and  one  dispensabile.  And  Odoin  is  to  find  the  king 
bread  in  his  court,  and  to  reckon  by  tallies  with  his  dispensers  and  with  all  his 
bakers,  and  he  shall  receive  the  money  and  give  quittances  to  the  bakers. 
And  when  the  king  sends  to  Rouen  for  bread,  Odoin  is  to  bring  it  at  the  king's 
cost,  and  every  pack  horse  shall  have  iid.  and  every  pannier-bearing  one  6d. 
and  every  basker-carrier  a  pennyworth  of  bread,  and  if  the  bread  is  brought 
by  water  the  boatman  shall  have  6d.  a  journey.  When  the  king  makes  a 
journey,  Odoin  is  to  have  all  that  is  left  of  the  bread  of  the  panetaria;  and  he 
is  to  have  charge  of  and  jiu-isdiction  over  the  king's  bakers  at  Rouen  and 
within  the  banlieue  of  Rouen,  and  all  their  forfeitures,  and  the  weighing  of 
bread,  and  all  fines  of  bread  and  forfeited  bread.  Odoin  shall  also  have  one 
free  fishery  in  the  Seine,  and  all  his  wheat  shall  be  ground  in  the  king's  mills 
of  Rouen  free  of  charge,  immediately  after  the  wheat  which  he  shall  find  in 
the  hopper;  and  he  is  to  be  one  of  the  regarders  of  the  king's  forests,  at  the 
king's  cost,  and  to  be  quit  of  pannage  in  all  these  forests  for  all  his  swine,  and 
every  Christmas  he  is  to  have  twenty  shillings  or  four  swine,'  etc.^" 

1"  Chronique  ascendante,  ed.  Andresen  (i.  214),  line  211. 
Roman  de  Ron,  ed.  Andresen,  ii,  line  799  ff. 

Delisle,  Cartulaire  normand,  no.  14;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  705;  Round,  Calen- 
dar, no.  1280;  there  is  also  a  copy  in  MS.  Lat.  9067,  f.  141V.  On  the  difficult 
question  of  the  nature  and  date  of  this  charter,  see  Dehsle,  in  B.  E.  C,  Ixvii.  395- 
397;  Round,  in  Archaeological  Journal,  Ixiv.  73-77;  Delisle,  Henti  II,  p.  34,  note; 
Round,  Serjeants,  p.  199  f. 

^"  This  is,  substantially,  Round's  analysis. 


Il8  NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 

Here  the  serjeant  remains  at  Rouen  and,  apart  from  his  con- 
tinuing privileges,  draws  his  livery  only  while  the  king  is  there,  so 
that  he  belongs  with  the  chaplains  and  porters  attached  per- 
manently to  the  royal  castles  rather  than  with  the  officers  who 
follow  the  king.  So  in  an  early  charter  of  Henry  II  his  serjeant 
Baudri,  besides  his  daily  wages  as  porter  and  jailer  at  Rouen  and 
his  gifts  and  liveries  as  regarder  and  pannager  of  the  forests,  is 
confirmed  as  marshal  whenever  the  king  sojourns  at  Rouen,  re- 
ceiving for  each  of  these  days  six  loaves  of  bread,  six  portions  from 
the  kitchen,  and  a  sextary  of  wine,  besides  a  shield  each  year  and 
every  Christmas  two  swine  from  the  larder  of  Rouen  and  a  beech 
in  one  of  the  forests.^^*  Henry  II  had  a  way  of  rewarding  his 
Serjeants  with  town  houses,  notably  in  the  growing  port  of 
Dieppe,'^^  and  one  of  his  grants  of  this  sort  may  explain  an  un- 
explained officer  of  the  Constitutio,  namely  Ralph  le  Robeur,  or  le 
Bobeur,  whom  I  am  inclined  to  identify  with  Ralph  le  Forbeur, 
who  held  a  house  at  Bayeux  on  condition  of  furbishing  the  king's 
hunting  arms.^^" 

Rouen  was  doubtless  the  principal  center  for  these  officials  of 
the  more  local  and  stationary  type,'^^  although  too  much  must  not 
be  argued  from  the  survival  of  documents  respecting  serjeanties 
which  owed  their  value  principally  to  the  later  growth  of  the  city. 
It  would  still  be  an  anachronism  to  speak  of  Rouen  as  a  capital, 
yet  it  has  special  significance  in  connection  with  the  treasury,  and 
it  appears  much  more  frequently  than  any  other  Norman  place  in 
the  king's  charters,'®^  while  his  park  at  Sainte-Vaubourg  and  his 
palace  at  Le  Pre  were  close  by.^^'  Next  to  Rouen,  Caen  holds  the 

Delisle-Berger,  no.  212.  For  another  Rouen  marshalship  see  Geoffrey's 
charter,  infra,  Chapter  IV,  no.  13;  and  cf.  the  services  due  Henry  I  from  Roland 
d'Oissel:  DeUsle,  Carlulaire  normand,  no.  2;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  1278. 

See  the  Coutumier  of  Dieppe,  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  G.  851; 
Delisle-Berger,  nos.  115,  329,  398,  479,  709,  713,  719. 

1*"  '  Servitio  furbiandi  venabula  et  alia  arma  mea  ' :  Cartulaire  de  Normandie 
(MS.  Rouen  1235),  f.  24V;  DeUsle-Berger,  no.  723;  Valin,  p.  151,  note  4.  Cf. 
'Aldwinus  forbator'  in  Pipe  Roll  31  Henry  I,  p.  41. 

To  the  treasurer  and  Serjeants  mentioned  above  should  be  added  '  Robertus 
capeDanus  meus  de  Rotomago  ':  Monaslicon,  vii.  1043,  1099;  Round,  no.  475. 

See  Appendix  G,  supplemented  by  the  great  number  of  charters  which  cannot 
be  specifically  dated. 

1"  B.     C,  xi.  438;  Stapleton,  i,  p.  cxli;  fitienne  de  Rouen,  ed.  Omont,  bk.  iii, 


HENRY  I 


119 


chief  place  in  the  description  of  his  enlargement  and  strengthening 
of  the  older  Norman  castles/^*  and  in  his  itinerary  Caen,  Falaise, 
and  Argentan  appear  most  frequently  after  Rouen.  The  sessions 
of  court  and  justices  at  the  castle  of  Caen  foreshadow  the  later 
meetings  of  the  Exchequer  there,  while  the  king's  loricarii  at 
Argentan  are  reminders  that  such  strongholds  were  also  needed 
for  sterner  work.^^®  Henry's  sojourns  elsewhere  are  scattered 
through  his  itinerary  without  indicating  any  such  degree  of  fre- 
quency or  length  of  stay;  besides  the  ports  of  Dieppe  and  Bar- 
fleur  and  the  older  towns  and  fortresses  of  the  interior,  they 
include  his  newer  strongholds  on  or  near  the  frontier — Verneuil 
and  Vire,  Vaudreuil  and  Lions-la-Foret,  where  he  died. 

Besides  the  Norman  parallels  to  the  Serjeants  and  Uveries  of  the 
Constitutio,  there  is  definite  evidence  that  the  officers  who  ac- 
companied the  king  to  Normandy  received  the  same  stipends  as 
in  England.  In  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1 130  William  de  Pont  de  I'Arche, 
the  chamberlain,  has  an  allowance  for  the  period  of  sixty-three 
days  intervening  between  his  departure  from  the  king  in  Nor- 
mandy and  his  taking  over  of  the  bishopric  of  Durham,^"  a  jour- 
ney partly  in  Normandy  and  partly  in  England  during  which  he  is 
paid  at  the  uniform  rate  of  55.  a  day  fixed  in  the  Constitutio.  This 
further  shows  that  the  liveries  of  the  Constitutio  are  reckoned  in 
sterling,  due  allowance  being  doubtless  made  for  the  different 
standards  in  Normandy.  Moreover,  if  a  difference  existed  be- 
tween allowances  in  England  and  in  Normandy,  the  Constitutio 
could  hardly  have  avoided  mentioning  it  in  tracing  the  increase 
in  the  stipend  of  the  keeper  of  the  seal,  Robert,  a  constant  com- 
panion of  the  king  in  these  later  years,  who  was  receiving  his 
maximum  remvmeration  in  Normandy  at  the  moment  of  Henry's 
death.  We  may  conclude  that  there  is  no  reason  for  ascribing  the 

line  55  ff.  (Hewlett,  Chronicles  of  Stephen,  ii.  713);  Delisle-Berger,  no.  523;  Rotuli 
Charlarum,  p.  3. 

On  his  castles  see  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  164,  197;  id.,  in  WiUiam  of  Jumieges, 
ed.  Marx,  p.  309;  Powicke,  Loss  of  Normafidy,  p.  275  f. 
Supra,  no.  5;  Deville,  Analyse,  p.  47  f. 

Appendix  F,  no.  21.  Note  the  attestations  of  the  two  marshals. 

'In  liberatione  WUlelmi  de  Pontearcarum  de  .Ixiii.  diebus  .xv.l.  et  .xv.s. 
ex  quo  recessit  de  Rege  in  Normannia  et  accepit  episcopatum  Dunelmensem': 
p.  129,  cf.  p.  131. 


I20  NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 

Constitutio  exclusively  to  either  side  of  the  Channel,  but,  as  the 
compiler  speaks  particularly  of  conditions  at  the  time  of  the  king's 
death,  he  doubtless  had  most  freshly  in  mind  the  household  of  the 
last  two  years  of  the  reign,  which  were  spent  in  Normandy.  Hence 
the  modius  Rotomagensis ,  which  seems  to  have  been  the  standard 
measure  of  the  Norman  Exchequer. 

This  official  or  semi-official  description  of  the  household  in 
Henry's  later  years  may  be  supplemented  by  the  witnesses  to  the 
charters  which  he  issued  in  Normandy  1133-1135.1^^  The  most 
solemn  of  these,  the  ordinance  respecting  the  Truce  of  God  which 
is  the  only  surviving  monument  of  his  Norman  legislation,'^"  was 
promulgated  at  Rouen  in  presence  of  the  archbishop  and  the 
bishops  of  the  province,  and  by  the  common  counsel  and  consent 
of  the  attesting  barons  who  comprised  only  earls  and  high  ofl&cers 
of  the  curia:  Robert,  earl  of  Gloucester,  the  king's  son,  his  nephew 
Stephen,  the  earl  of  Leicester  and  Eaii  Giffard,  Brian  Fitz  Count 
constable,  Robert  de  Courcy  and  Hugh  Bigod  seneschals,  Wil- 
liam Fitz  Odo  chamberlain,  and  William  Fitz  John,  whose  office 
has  not  been  identified.  The  bishops  of  Ely  and  CarUsle  and  the 
keeper  of  the  seal  are  noted  as  present,  but  are  carefully  distin- 
guished from  the  barons.  A  charter  of  the  same  year  issued  at 
Caen  adds  to  Henry's  entourage  the  names  of  Geoffrey  Fitz 
Payne,  Roger  the  treasurer,  and  three  royal  chaplains,  Robert 
archdeacon  of  Exeter,  Richard  de  Beaufage,  and  Richard,  son  of 
Robert  of  Gloucester,  the  last  two  already  designated  as  bishops 
respectively  of  Avranches  and  Bayeux.'^^  Charters  of  the  pre- 
ceding year  '"  add  to  the  names  of  officers  of  state  who  were  with 

Stapleton,  i.  32,  39,  where  we  read  of  rents  and  allowances  in  the  Cotentin 
of  '  modii  avene  '  and  '  modii  bladii,'  'ad  mensuram  Rothom[agensem].' 
1^'  See  Appendix  G. 

1'°  Tres  Ancien  Coukmier,  ed.  Tardif,  c.  71;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  290. 
Round,  no.  590. 
Ordericus,  v.  44  f. 

Round,  nos.  375,  959-  See  further  no.  374;  supra,  no.  18;  E.  H.  R.,  xxiii. 
726,  no.  iv  (Monasticon,  viii.  1275),  which  adds  William,  Earl  Warren  {ibid.,  vii. 
1113).  From  the  lists  of  those  who  were  with  the  king  in  England  just  before  the 
transfretation  of  1133  {Monasticon,  vi.  177;  Madox,  Baronia  Anglica,  p.  158; 
cf .  Round,  Feudal  England,  p.  426  f .)  it  appears  that  many  of  these  must  have 
crossed  with  him. 


HENRY  I 


121 


the  king  at  Rouen  Robert  de  la  Haie  and  Humphrey  de  Bohun 
seneschals,  and  Robert  de  Vere  constable.  Three  other  chamber- 
lains, Aubrey  de  Vere,  William  of  Houghton,  and  William  of 
Glastonbury,  are  found  at  Falaise  in  a  royal  charter  of  the  same 
period, and  two  marshals  appear  with  the  king  at  Argentan."' 
At  Henry's  death,  i  December  1135  at  Lions,  there  were  present, 
in  addition  to  his  chaplains,  the  archbishop  of  Rouen,  the  bishop 
of  Evreux,  the  earls  of  Gloucester,  Surrey,  and  Leicester,  and  the 
counts  of  Meulan  and  Perche.^"^ 

In  their  journeyings  to  and  fro  across  the  Channel  the  kings  of 
the  twelfth  century  made  use  of  a  royal  galley  (esnecca) pay- 
ments for  which  are  a  regular  item  in  the  Pipe  Rolls  of  Henry  II. 
In  the  Conqueror's  reign  this  service  seems  to  have  been  in  charge 
of  Stephen  Fitz  Airard,  who  appears  in  Domesday  holding  lands 
in  Berkshire,  and  is  probably  the  '  Stephanus  stirman  '  who  has  a 
house  in  Warwick  and  the  rent  of  two  houses  in  Southampton."* 
After  Stephen's  death  the  privilege  does  not  seem  to  have  passed 
to  his  family,  and  when  his  son  Thomas  claimed  the  feudal  right 
by  placing  the  White  Ship  at  the  disposal  of  Henry  I  in  11 20, 
provision  had  already  been  made  for  the  king's  crossing."^  Who 
possessed  the  ministerium  esnecce  under  Henry  I  and  his  grandson 
we  learn  from  a  charter  issued  by  Henry  II  at  the  beginning  of 
his  reign: 

Sciatis  me  reddidisse  et  concessisse  Willelmo  et  Nicholao,  filiis  Rogeri 
generi  Alberti,  et  heredibus  Bonefacii  et  Azonis  et  Roberti  et  Radulfi  fratrum 
ipsonim  ministerium  meum  de  esnecca  mea  cum  liberatione  que  pertinet  et 

Ramsey  Chronicle,  p.  284,  no.  335;  Ramsey  Cartulary,  i.  250. 
'"^  Appendix  F,  no.  21.  Ordericus,  v.  50  f. 

1"  '  Rex  Anglie  ad  suam  transfretationem  navem  propriam  solet  habere.  Can- 
cellarius  ei  fieri  fecit  non  unam  solam  sed  tres  simul  naves  optimas:  '  Fitz  Stephen, 
Vita  S.  Thome  {Materials,  iii.  26).  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  ministerium  of  the 
Hastings  esnecca  which  was  held  under  Henry  I  by  the  ancestors  of  Roger  of 
'  Bumes  '  (Abbreviatio  Placitorum,  p.  39b)  was  distinct  from  the  service  of  the 
esnecca  mentioned  below.  Under  Henry  II  it  passed  to  Hugh  de  Bee,  husband  of 
Roger's  sister  lUaria,  and  was  claimed  under  John  by  Roger's  niece  Avicia.  What 
may  be  a  Chester  esnecca  appears  in  1168  (Pipe  Roll,  p.  92). 

Ordericus,  iv.  411;  Domesday  Book,  i.  52,  63b,  238.  Stephen  Fitz  Airard  also 
appears  in  a  charter  of  the  early  years  of  Henry  I  which  permits  him  to  grant  lands 
to  Ramsey:  Calendar  of  Charier  Rolls,  ii.  102,  no.  5  (cf.  nos.  7  and  15). 
Ordericus,  iv.  411. 


122 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


totam  terram  Rogeri  generi  Alberti  et  feoda  omnia  que  ipse  Rogerus  tenuit  in 
capite  de  rege  H.  avo  meo  et  de  quocimque  tenuisset  die  qua  fudt  vivxis  et 
mortuus.  1^ 

Roger,  son-in-law  of  Albert,  is  otherwise  known.  He  had  held 
lands  in  Wallop  (Hampshire)  before  1130,1*1  as  well  as  lands 
in  Southampton  which  he  and  his  wife  gave  to  the  abbey  of  St. 
Denis,!*^  and  he  witnessed  a  royal  charter  in  Normandy  which 
cannot  be  earUer  than  1123.1*^  The  miniskrium  doubtless  came 
to  him  from  Albert  vdth.  his  wife  A\dzia,  which  would  carry  it  well 
back  into  Henry's  reign.  The  interesting  fact  to  note  is  that  while 
none  of  the  names  in  his  family  are  Anglo-Saxon,  and  none  are 
necessarily  Xorman,  one  at  least,  Boniface,  is  e\adently  Itahan,i** 
while  the  names  Albert  and  Azo,  as  well  as  the  form  A\izia, 
though  not  necessarily  Italian,  point  toward  Italy.  The  appear- 
ance of  an  Itahan  shipmaster  in  charge  of  the  royal  galley  under 
Henry  I  is  surely  a  matter  of  interest,  and  suggests  that  inter- 
course ■^vith  the  South  in  this  period  may  well  have  been  more 
active  than  is  commonly  supposed. 

British  Museum,  Campbell  Charter,  xxis.  9;  printed  in  Archaeologia,  vi.  116; 
Delisle-Berger,  no.  26.  Cf.  N.  H.  Nicolas,  History  of  the  Royal  Navy,  i.  433;  Guide 
to  Manuscripts  exhibited  in  the  Department  of  Manuscripts  (1899),  p.  41,  no.  17. 
181  Pipe  Roll  31  Henry  I,  p.  39. 

1*2  Calendar  of  Charter  Rolls,  iii.  337;  cf.  my  paper  in  Melanges  Charles  Bemont, 
p.  78. 

1®  Charter  for  Walter  de  Beauchamp,  given  at  Vaudreuil:  Appendix  F,  no.  9. 
1**  On  the  rarity  of  the  name  Boniface  in  England  in  this  period  see  Andrew,  in 
the  Numismatic  Chronicle,  fourth  series,  i.  208, 


CK\PTER  IV 


NORMANDY  UNDER  STEPHEN  OF  BLOIS  ANT) 
GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENETi 

The  conquest  of  Normandy  by  Geoffrey  of  Anjou  raises  an  in- 
teresting question  for  students  of  Norman  histor>%  since  by  estab- 
lishing between  the  two  countries  a  personal  union  which  was  to 
last  sixty  years  it  opened  the  way  to  Angevin  influence  in  the 
affairs  of  the  duchy  and  to  the  possible  modification  of  Norman 
institutions  in  accordance  with.  Ange\'in  practice.  The  problem 
of  the  nature  and  extent  of  this  influence  presents  itseff  in  its 
simplest  form  during  Geoffrey's  own  reign  of  six  years,  not  only 
because  the  new  duke  was,  unlike  his  successors,  exclusively  the 
product  of  Ange\'in  training  and  tradition,  but  also  because  under 
him  the  Norman  and  Angexin  lands  led  a  hfe  of  their  own,  dis- 
tinct from  that  of  the  larger  empire  of  which  they  afterward 
formed  a  part.  Unfortunately  the  available  information  is 
meager,  especially  with  reference  to  the  preliminary  elements  in 
the  problem,  for  we  know  but  Uttle  of  conditions  in  Normandy 
imder  Henry  I,  and  no  special  study  has  yet  been  made  of  Anjou 
imder  Fulk  of  Jerusalem  and  his  son.^  In  general  it  appears  that 
the  state  which  Fulk  the  Red  and  his  descendants  hammered  out 
on  the  borders  of  the  Loire  was  smaller  and  more  compact  than 
the  duchy  to  the  northward,  and  the  government  of  its  rulers  was 
more  direct  and  personal,  so  that  its  administrative  needs  were 
simpler  and  seem  to  have  been  met  without  the  creation  of  a  fiscal 
and  judicial  system  like  the  Norman  and  without  any  such  fixity 
of  documentary'  form  or  rigor  of  official  procedure  as  are  dis- 
cernible in  Normandy  by  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century. 
*  Revised  from  E.  H.  R.,  xxvii.  417-/^/1/1  (1912). 

^  For  the  eleventh  centur>'  there  is  an  admirable  study  by  L.  Halphen,  Le  comte 
d' Anjou  au  XP  siecle  (Paris,  1906).  For  the  twelfth,  a  certain  amount  of  useful 
material  is  contained  in  C.  J.  Beautemps-Beaupre,  Cmiliimes  el  institutions  del' Anjou 
el  du  Maine,  part  ii,  i  (Paris,  1890) ;  see  also  F.  M.  Powicke,  The  Angevin  Adminis- 
tration of  Normandy,  E.  H.  R.,  xxi.  625-649,  especially  648  f.,  xxii.  15-42;  and  his 
Loss  of  Normandy,  ch.  ii. 

123 


124 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


In  point  of  organization  there  is  no  ground  for  considering  the 
Angevin  government  to  have  been  in  advance  of  the  Norman,  nor, 
unless  it  be  in  the  more  immediate  control  of  affairs  by  the  count, 
is  there  inherent  reason  for  expecting  it  to  have  had  the  marked 
effects  upon  Norman  poKcy  which  are  sometimes  ascribed  to  it. 
Statements  on  these  matters  are,  however,  premature  until  more 
is  known  of  the  state  of  Anjou  during  this  period,  but  it  is  possible 
in  the  meantime  to  bring  together  the  Norman  evidence  for 
Geoffrey's  reign  and  consider  it  with  reference  to  the  persistence 
of  older  institutions  as  well  as  to  possible  innovations.  For  such 
a  study  the  death  of  Henry  I  forms  the  natural  point  of  departure. 

In  Normandy,  as  in  England,  the  reign  of  Stephen  seems  to 
have  had  a  merely  negative  importance.  After  Henry's  death  the 
Norman  barons  invited  Theobald  of  Blois  to  rule  over  them,  but 
the  news  of  his  brother's  accession  in  England  decided  them  to 
accept  the  lord  of  whom  their  English  fiefs  were  held.  Stephen 
took  the  title  of  duke  of  the  Normans,  and  had  it  engraved  on  his 
seal,  but  he  used  it  rarely,  even  in  Norman  documents/  and 
never  exercised  an  effective  government  over  the  whole  of  the 
duchy.  The  great  strongholds  of  the  southern  border,  Argentan, 
Exmes,  and  Domfront,  had  been  promptly  handed  over  to  the 
empress  by  a  loyal  vicomte,  as  had  also  the  castles  of  the  count  of 
Ponthieu,  notably  Seez  and  Alengon,  which  were  restored  to 
Count  William  in  return  for  his  support  of  the  Angevin  party. 
From  this  basis,  after  a  short  truce,  Geoffrey  and  his  followers 
carried  their  ravages  westward  into  the  vale  of  Mortain  and  the 
Cotentin,  and  northward  as  far  as  Lisieux,  while  the  party  of 
Stephen  waited  in  vain  for  the  arrival  of  its  leader.*  It  was  not 
till  March  1137  that  the  king,  accompanied  by  the  queen,  the 
bishops  of  Winchester,  Lincoln,  and  Carlisle,  and  his  chancellor, 
Roger,  ^  arrived  at  La  Hougue  and  proceeded  by  way  of  Bayeux 

'  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  115  f. 

*  Ordericus,  V.  56-78;  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  199  f.,  205;  John  of  Marmoutier, 
in  Marchegay,  Chroniques  des  comles  d'Artjmi,  p.  294  (ed.  Halphen  and  Poupardin, 
p.  225);  William  of  Malmesbury,  Historia  Novella,  p.  538;  Henry  of  Huntingdon, 
p.  260. 

^  See  their  attestations  in  Delisle,  pp.  117-119,  nos.  2-8,  10.  For  Alexander  of 
Lincoln,  see  also  Henry  of  Huntingdon,  p.  260,  and  two  notifications  issued  in  his 
favor  by  Stephen  at  Rouen  and  preserved  in  the  Registrum  Antiquissimum  of 


GEOFFREY  PLANT AGENET  1 25 

and  fivreux  to  the  valley  of  the  Seine.  Although  he  was  well  re- 
ceived by  the  Normans,  who  had  been  embittered  by  the  excesses 
of  the  Angevin  soldiery,  and  was  recognized  by  the  French  king, 
Stephen's  presence  was  not  sufficient  to  bring  peace  to  the  coun- 
try. Geoffrey  was  able  to  lead  an  attack  on  Caen  and  force 
money  from  Norman  monasteries  as  the  price  of  safety  for  their 
lands,  and  after  an  abortive  attempt  at  an  expedition  against 
Argentan,  Stephen  was,  early  in  July,  forced  to  purchase  a  truce 
by  the  annual  payment  of  two  thousand  marks.  Through  this 
parching  summer  and  until  his  return  to  England  early  in  Decem- 
ber, Normandy  enjoyed  whatever  of  order  its  duke  was  able  to 
give  it.  Certain  robber  barons  were  coerced  into  obedience  ®  and 
the  forms  of  administration  were  maintained,  but  Stephen's  own 
partisans  were  obhged  to  admit  that  he  was  a  weak  ruler.''  His 
strongest  support  seems  to  have  come  from  the  Norman  church: 
the  archbishop  of  Rouen  and  four  of  his  suffragans  had  hastened 
to  his  court  in  England  early  in  1136;  Archdeacon  Arnulf  of  Seez 
was  his  chief  envoy  to  Rome  in  the  same  year;  *  and  most  of  the 

Lincoln  Cathedral,  nos.  180,  194,  a  reference  which  I  owe  to  the  kindness  of  Mr.  H. 
W.  C.  Davis  (cf.  Calendar  of  Charier  Rolls,  iv.  103,  no.  29,  140,  no.  17).  The  king 
was  accompanied  as  far  as  Portsmouth  by  Roger  of  Salisbury  and  several  other 
members  of  the  atria  who  do  not  seem  to  have  crossed :  Calendar  of  Charter  Rolls, 
iii.  338.  On  Stephen's  sojourn  in  Normandy  see  O.  Rossler,  Kaiserin  Malhilde, 
pp.  185-193;  Ramsay,  Foundations  of  England,  ii.  359-364. 

His  presence  at  Bayeux  is  shown  by  a  charter  for  Montebourg  (Dehsle,  p.  117, 
no.  i;  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  206),  which  is  dated  1136,  and  must  accordingly  have 
been  issued  between  Stephen's  arrival  in  Normandy,  in  the  third  week  of  March, 
and  Easter  (11  April  1 137) .  So  a  charter  for  Le  Grand-Beaulieu  of  Chartres  {Cartu- 
laire,  ed.  Merlet  and  Jusselin,  no.  11,  from  the  original  in  the  Archives  of  the 
Eure-et-Loir)  is  given  at  fivreux  in  1136  'regni  mei  vero  secundo.'  Other  points  in 
Stephen's  itinerary  which  appear  from  the  charters  but  are  not  mentioned  in  the 
chroniclers  are  Falaise  (Round,  Calendar,  no.  6ii),  Lions-la-Foret  {ibid.,  no.  1404), 
Rouen  {ibid.,  no.  1055;  D.  Gumey,  Record  of  the  House  of  Goiirnay  (London,  1848- 
1858),  i.  108;  Calendar  of  Charter  Rolls,  iii.  374;  infra,  note  9). 

'  Ordericus,  v.  81-91;  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  206  f.  On  the  date  of  Stephen's 
return  see  also  Gervase  of  Canterbury,  i.  loi ;  John  of  Worcester,  ed.  Weaver,  p.  45 ; 
Henry  of  Huntingdon,  p.  260. 

'  '  Normannia  .  .  .  totam  eflScaci  gubematore  provinciam  carere  mesta  vide- 
bat ':  Ordericus,  v.  91. 

*  Round,  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  pp.  252  f.,  260,  262  f.  On  the  attitude  of  the 
Norman  clergy  cf.  Actus  Pontificum  Cenomannis,  ed.  Busson  and  Ledru  (Le  Mans, 
igoi),  p.  446. 


126 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


Norman  prelates  continued  to  adhere  to  him  with  a  loyalty  which 
was  to  cost  them  dear  at  the  hands  of  his  successor.  It  is  not  sur- 
prising that,  of  the  score  of  Stephen's  charters  which  relate  to 
Normandy,^  two  confirm  the  bishops  in  their  privileges/"  and  most 
of  the  others  concern  the  religious  establishments  of  upper  Nor- 
mandy. Both  in  form  and  in  substance  these  documents  follow 
closely  the  charters  of  Henry  I  and  assume  the  maintenance  of  his 
administrative  system,  with  its  justices,  vicomtes,  and  subordi- 
nate officers.  They  also  show  that  the  ducal  revenues  were  kept 
at  farm,  at  least  in  eastern  Normandy  —  indeed,  a  fiscal  roll  of 
1 136  is  said  to  have  once  existed  —  and  that  the  Norman  treas- 
urers, among  them  Robert  of  Evreux,  continued  in  office. It  is, 
however,  noteworthy  that  only  one  order  to  a  Norman  ofiicial  has 
survived,  and  while  it  refers  to  an  earlier  writ  on  the  same  subject, 
it  is  perhaps  significant  that  this  previous  command  has  not  been 
obeyed : 

'  Delisle,  Henri  11,  pp.  117-120,  nos.  1-13  (no.  i  is  printed  without  the  witnesses 
in  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  238;  nos.  3  and  4  are  in  Le  Prevost,  Etire,  ii.  477,  488; 
no.  7  is  Ln  part  in  Neustria  Pia,  p.  778,  and  is  indicated,  probably  erroneously,  in 
the  Invenlaire  sommaire  as  having  been  Ln  the  Archives  of  the  Eure,  H.  592); 
Round,  Calendar,  nos.  9,  239,  291-296,  427,  570,  611,  800,  802,  1055,  1404.  Also  a 
charter  for  Beaubec  issued  at  Rouen  (Archives  of  the  SeLne-Inferieure,  G.  851,  f. 
S7v;  Archives  Nationales,  JJ.  46,  f.  37V;  printed  from  a  vidimus  of  Charles  VI  in 
Gurney,  Record  of  the  House  ofGournay,  i.  108) ;  a  writ  for  Bee,  printed  below,  no.  i; 
a  charter  for  Bee  given  at  Marlborough  (MS.  Lat.  13905,  f.  2iv) ;  another  addressed 
to  his  cfQcers  of  Wissant  and  Boulogne  and  given  at  Rouen  {ibid.,  f .  86) ;  a  charter 
for  the  cordwainers  of  Rouen  (La  Roque,  iii.  149,  where  it  is  wrongly  attributed  to 
William  I) ;  and  an  agreement  Ln  his  presence  at  Rouen  Ln  1137  between  the  canons 
of  SaLnt-Evroul  and  the  monks  of  Notre-Dame  de  MortaLn,  notified  by  Richard, 
bishop  of  Avranches  (MS.  292,  f.  309V,  of  the  Library  of  Caen,  from  the  original; 
MS.  Lat.  5411,  part  ii,  p.  409;  Collection  Moreau,  Ivii.  126;  MS.  Fr.  4900,  f.  70). 
Of  these  nos.  11-13  in  Delisle  and  nos.  9,  295,  296,  427,  800,  802  in  Round  were 
issued  Ln  England,  leaving  fifteen  documents  issued  in  Normandy,  Lf  we  Lnclude 
the  charter  for  Fontevrault  (Delisle,  no.  10;  Round,  no.  1055).  To  these  may  be 
added  four  others  given  at  Rouen  for  establishments  outside  of  Normandy,  namely 
one  for  Boulogne  (Calendar  of  Charter  Rolls,  iii.  374),  one  for  the  leprosery  of 
Chartres  (Cartiilaire,  ed.  Merlet  and  Jusselin,  no.  11)  confirming  its  alms  from  the 
Norman  treasury,  and  the  two  for  Lincoln  mentioned  above,  note  5. 

Delisle,  nos.  5,  11;  Round,  nos.  9,  291.  "  Round,  nos.  292  f.,  570. 

^  It  is  mentioned  in  1790:  M.  A.  N.,  xvi,  p.  xxx. 

Supra,  pp.  106-110;  charter  for  Le  Grand-BeauUeu  of  Chartres  (Cartulaire, 
no.  11)  confirming  Henry  I's  grant  of  £io  Ln  his  Norman  treasury. 

"  Fragment  of  cartulary  of  Bee  in  the  Archives  of  the  Eure,  H.  91,  f.  35.  Prob- 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


127 


(i)  S.  rex  Angl[orum]  Ing[eranno]  de  Wasc[oKo]  salutem.  Scias  quoniam 
vehementer  miror  de  hoc  quod  non  fecisti  preceptum  meum  de  terra  mona- 
chorum  de  Becco  de  Turfrevilla  de  elemosina  Willelmi  Pevrell[i].  Quare  tibi 
precipio  quod  facias  in  pace  et  iuste  et  quiete  terrain  illam  tenere  sicut  melius 
tenuerunt  die  qua  rex  Henricus  fuit  vivus  et  mortuus,  ita  quod  non  requiras 
aliquam  novam  consuetudinem  de  hominibus  in  terra  ilia  residentibus. 
Teste  comite  de  Mell[ento]  apud  Pont  [em]  Ald[omari]. 

At  his  departure  Stephen  left  the  government  of  Normandy  in 
the  hands  of  certain  justiciars,  among  whom  we  have  the  names  of 
only  Roger  the  vicomte,  who  met  his  death  shortly  afterwards  in 
the  effort  to  maintain  order  in  the  Cotentin,  and  Wilham  of  Rou- 
mare/^  who  is  mentioned  as  justiciar  in  a  Rouen  document  of 
18  December  1 138.^''  Beyond  this  point  no  regular  administration 
of  the  duchy  can  be  traced,  and  even  in  the  castles  and  towns 
which  continued  to  recognize  Stephen  his  authority  must  have 
become  merely  nominal  after  the  outbreak  of  the  civil  war  drew 
the  leaders  of  his  party  across  the  sea.^^  William  of  Ypres  and 
Richard  de  Luci,  who  are  fighting  for  him  in  Normandy  in  1138, 
join  him  in  England  at  the  close  of  the  year;  Galeran  of  Meulan 
and  his  brother  the  earl  of  Leicester  are  with  him  in  1139;  and 

ably  issued  in  June,  when  Stephen  was  at  Pontaudemer  (Ordericus,  v.  85;  of. 
Dehsle,  no.  8). 

Ordericus,  v.  gi  f.,  105;  Delisle,  S.-Sativeur,  p.  28  f. 

Printed,  supra,  Chapter  III,  no.  4;  Valin,  p.  260;  Vernier,  no.  61;  all  from 
the  original  in  the  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure. 

"  The  charter  of  Stephen  as  count  of  Mortain,  purporting  to  have  been  issued 
at  Mortain  '  in  aula  comitis  '  in  ii3g  (Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  478),  is  false,  at  least  so 
far  as  the  date  is  concerned,  for  Stephen  spent  that  year  in  England,  and  the  bishop 
of  Avranches  was  then  Richard,  not  Herbert,  whose  seal  was  attached  to  the  accom- 
panying charter  (MS.  Lat.  5441,  ii.  416).  Charters  of  Stephen  as  count  of  Mortain 
are  knowoi  for  Bee  (Round,  no.  378);  for  Saint-fitienne  (Deville,  Analyse,  p.  18); 
for  the  Dames  Blanches  of  Mortain  (Stapleton,  i,  p.  bcv) ;  for  Savigny  (cartulary 
in  Archives  of  the  Manche,  no.  211);  and  for  the  nuns  of  Moutons,  in  the  style  of 
the  Anglo-Norman  writ,  as  follows:  '  St.  comes  Bolonie  et  Mortonii  Stephano  vice- 
comiti  omnibusque  suis  baronibus  atque  servientibus  salutem.  Mando  et  precipio 
vobis  ut  omnes  res  dominarum  Sancte  Marie  de  Muston,  sciiicet  in  terra  et  in  vaccis 
et  in  aliis  bestiis,  in  pace  et  quiete  dimittatis,  easque  et  quidquid  ad  eas  pertinet 
honorifice  custodiatis  et  manuteneatis.  Tibi  autem,  Stephane,  firmiter  precipio  ne 
de  aliqua  causa  implacites  eas  nisi  per  me  et  coram  me,  quia  sunt  in  mea  custodia 
ilUsque  deffendo  ne  placitent  sine  me.  Istis  testibus:  Hamfredo  dapifero  et  Addam 
de  Belnayo  et  Hamfredo  de  Camerayo  [or  camerario].'  Copies,  based  on  a  vidimus 
of  1310,  in  Archives  of  the  Manche, /om/j  Moutons. 


128 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


William  of  Roumare  goes  over  to  the  empress  in  1 140.1*  Left  to 
itself,  the  country  quickly  fell  back  into  the  disorder  and  blood- 
shed from  which  it  had  never  really  emerged  during  Stephen's 
nine  months'  sojourn.  The  descriptions  of  the  Norman  anarchy 
lack  something  of  the  realism  with  which  William  of  Newburgh 
and  the  Peterborough  chronicler  depict  conditions  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Channel,  but  the  account  in  Ordericus  is  vivid  enough, 
both  in  its  general  summary  and  its  concrete  examples,  and  its 
venerable  author  saw  no  hope  of  better  days  when  he  brought  his 
work  to  its  noble  close  in 

Yet  this  same  year  proved  the  turning-point  in  the  reestablish- 
ment  of  ducal  authority.^"  Secure  in  the  possession  of  Argentan 

Ordericus,  v.  108,  115,  125;  Round,  Gcofrey  de  Mandeville,  pp.  46,  55;  Ram- 
say, Foundations  of  England,  ii.  396;  E.  H.  R.,  xxv.  116. 

Ordericus,  v.  57-77,  79  f.,  89-91,  104-iog,  114-117,  130  f.,  133.  One  of  the 
regions  which  suffered  most  severely  was  the  Avranchin,  where  the  account  of 
Ordericus  (v.  89)  and  Robert  of  Torigni  (ii.  234)  is  supplemented  by  an  original 
notice  from  the  archives  of  Mont-Saint-Michel  (Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  14997; 
MS.  Avranches  210,  f.  8ov):  Certain  men  of  the  Mount  'post  mortem  enim  caris- 
simi  domini  nostri  Henrici  regis  in  abbatem  dominum  suum  et  contra  totius  villg 
salutem  nequiter  cum  pluribus  huiusce  mali  consciis  conspirationem  fecerunt.  Quo 
comperto  a  pluribus  abbas  consilio  fidelium  suorum  eos  convenit  et  super  tot  et 
tantos  malis  conquestus  eos  alloquitur,  quibus  negantibus  et  obtestantibus  iterum 
fidelitatem  tam  sue  salutis  quam  totius  villg  iuraverunt.  Qui  iterum  in  proditione 
ilia  vehementer  grassati  hominibus  alterius  regionis  ad  tantum  facinus  patrandum 
adheserunt,  iterum  allocuti  et  tercio  sacramentis  adstricti  funditus  in  malitia  sua 
perseveraverunt.  Ad  ultimum  congregata  curia  ad  dies  plurimos  constitutos  omne 
iuditium  subterfugerunt  et  sic  mahtia  eorum  comperta  omnibus  patuit.  Quo  com- 
perto liberales  ipsius  vLUe  et  ipsius  provintie  proceres  super  ignominia  tanta  confusi 
eos  omnino  e.xterminaverunt  et  sacramento  affirmaverunt  extunc  illos  non  recepturos 
nec  cum  eis  deinceps  habitaturos.  .  .  .  [Rogerius  camerarius]  post  mortem  regis 
Anglie  sacramentum  irritum  fecit,  Britanniam  cum  omni  suppellectili  petiit,  unde 
multa  mala  non  solum  per  se  verum  etiam  dux  factus  inimicorum  qui  tunc  temporis 
nimia  aviditate  Normanniam  infestabant  terre  et  hominibus  ecclesie  irrogavit.'  It 
will  be  noted  that  in  this  document  there  is  no  trace  of  ducal  authority  after  Henry's 
death,  and  the  barons  take  matters  into  their  own  hands. 

On  Geoffrey's  recovery  of  Normandy  see  Kate  Norgate,  Angevin  Kings,  i. 
338-342,  and  the  authorities  there  cited.  That,  as  Miss  Norgate  says,  "  the  story 
of  this  campaign,  as  told  by  the  historians  of  the  time,  is  little  more  than  a  list  of 
the  places  taken,  put  together  evidently  at  random,"  is  true  only  of  WiUiam  of 
Malmesbury,  who  lacked  local  knowledge.  The  succession  of  events  in  Robert  of 
Torigni  and  John  of  Marmoutier  is  intelligible  and  consistent,  and  of  the  additional 
places  mentioned  by  William  of  Malmesbury,  Bastebourg  and  Trevieres  were  ap- 
parently the  result  of  special  expeditions  from  Caen  and  Bayeux,  while  the  others 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


129 


and  the  adjoining  vicomtes,  and  controlling  Caen  and  Bayeux 
through  his  alhance  with  Robert  of  Gloucester,  Geoffrey  of 
Anjou  in  1141  won  Lisieux,  Falaise,  and  the  country  as  far  as  the 
Seine,  and  the  following  year  gave  him  not  only  the  outstanding 
places  in  the  Bessin,  but  the  county  of  Mortain,  the  Avranchin, 
and  the  Cotentin.^^  By  January  1144  he  was  able  to  enforce  the 
submission  of  the  city  of  Rouen,  followed  three  months  later  by 
the  surrender  of  its  tower.^^  Although  the  castle  of  Arques  held 
out  until  thesummer  of  the  following  year,  the  barons  of  the  duchy 
had  already  made  their  peace  with  the  new  duke,  who  had  won 
over  their  leader,  the  count  of  Meulan,  as  early  as  1 141 ;  and  even 
the  Norman  church,  which  had  received  Stephen's  nephew  as 
abbot  of  Fecamp  in  1140  and  his  chancellor  as  bishop  of  Bayeux 
in  1 142,  was  driven  to  acknowledge  the  king's  defeat.  John  of 
Lisieux,  the  justiciar  of  Henry  I,  submitted  to  Geoffrey  just  before 
his  death  in  1141;  the  bishop  of  Avranches  led  the  procession 
which  welcomed  the  Angevin  army  to  his  city  in  the  following 
year;  and  even  the  archbishop  of  Rouen,  maximus  regis  propug- 
nator  at  the  outbreak  of  the  civil  war  in  England,  who  dated  his 
documents  by  Stephen's  reign  as  late  as  1143,  was  doubtless 
present  when  Geoffrey  was  received  into  his  cathedral  upon  the 
city's  surrender,  and  thenceforth  recognized  him  as  ruler  of  the 

—  Briquessart,  Villers,  Plessis,  Vire  —  lay  in  the  direction  of  Mortain,  though  not 
"  up  the  left  bank  of  the  Ome." 

21  The  chroniclers  say  nothing  of  the  Channel  Islands,  although  modem  writers 
upon  the  islands  say  that  Geoffrey  sent  a  certain  Raoul  de  Valmont  there  to  estab- 
lish the  duke's  authority  and  ascertain  his  rights.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know 
the  origin  of  this  statement.  See  G.  Dupont,  Ilisloire  du  Cotcnlin  el  de  ses  lies 
(Caen,  1870),  i.  354-357;  F.  B.  Tupper,  History  of  Guernsey  (Guernsey,  1876),  p.  76; 
E.  P^got-Ogier,  Hisloire  des  lies  de  la  Matiche  (Paris,  1881),  p.  133  f.  We  know 
very  little  of  the  history  of  these  islands  in  the  twelfth  century. 

^  As  Geoffrey  crossed  the  Seine  at  Hilarymas  and  received  the  submission 
of  Rouen  19  or  20  January,  his  charter  for  Chateau-l'Hermitage,  given  28  January 
1144  at  Mayet  {Archives  hisloriqitcs  du  Maine,  vi.  45),  can  hardly  belong  in  this 
year.  On  the  surrender  of  Arques  in  the  following  year  see  Carlulaire  de  S.-Laud 
d' Angers,  ed.  Planchenault,  p.  65.  The  completion  of  the  conquest  as  far  as  the 
Seine  in  1143  is  confirmed  by  a  charter  of  that  year  given  '  Andegavis  civitate  in 
anno  quo  annuente  Deo  et  sancta  matre  eius  partem  Normannie  que  est  citra 
Sequanam  adquisivimus  ':P.  F.  Chifflet,  Histoire  de  I'abbaye  de  Toumus,  preuves, 
p.  424  (Ju^nin,  preuves,  p.  156). 


I30 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


duchy Although  he  had  been  so  styled  by  his  partisans  some 
time  before,^*  Geofifrey  did  not  assume  the  ducal  title  until  the 
acquisition  of  Rouen  gave  him  full  control  of  his  new  dominions 
and  justified  his  prompt  recognition  by  the  king  of  France.^^ 

Geoffrey's  reign  as  duke  of  Normandy  extends  from  1144  to 
early  in  11 50,  when  he  handed  the  duchy  over  to  his  son  Henry, 
the  heir  of  Matilda  and  Henry  I.^^  This  transfer,  accomphshed 

Bohmer,  Kirche  und  Stoat  in  England  und  in  der  Normandie,  p.  313  f.  The 
archbishop  still  recognizes  Stephen  in  a  document  of  1143  in  Gallia  Christiana,  xi. 
instr.  23,  but  acknowledges  Geoffrey  in  charters  of  1 145  (Pommeraye,  Histoire  de  S.- 
Ouen,  p.  425;  P.  LafBeur  de  Kermaingant,  Cartulaire  de  I'abbaye  de  S. -Michel  du 
Treport,  p.  31;  C.  Metais,  Cartulaire  de  la  Trinite  de  Vendome,  n.  331;  Collection 
Moreau,  bd.  188,  206) .  So  Amulf  of  Lisieux  dates  a  charter  for  Fecamp  by  Stephen's 
reign  in  1142  (Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  fonds  Fecamp),  but  attests  a 
charter  which  recognizes  Geoflrey  Ln  September  1143  (see  the  next  note),  and  is 
soon  busy  securing  the  favor  of  the  new  prince  (Epistolae,  no.  2) .  That  Geoffrey 
had  been  able  to  put  pressure  upon  the  Norman  church  appears  from  the  instance 
of  the  treasurer  of  Lisieux,  who  was  kept  out  of  his  church  of  Mesnil-Eudes  (Calva- 
dos) '  propter  ducatus  divisionem  ':  letters  of  Bishop  John  in  MS.  Lat.  5288,  f.  68. 

^  Charter  of  William,  count  of  Ponthieu,  for  Vignats,  19  September  1143,  wit- 
nessed by  the  bishops  of  Seez,  Lisieux,  and  Coutances,  and  three  abbots:  Gallia 
Christiana,  xi.  instr.  162.  On  the  other  hand  Geoffrey  is  called  count  in  a  charter 
of  Reginald  of  Saint- Valery  issued  some  time  before  the  capture  of  Dieppe:  Round, 
Calendar,  no.  1057;  Freville,  Histoire  du  commerce  de  Rouen,  ii.  9. 

On  the  assumption  of  the  ducal  title,  see  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  135  f.;  and  cf. 
the  date  of  no.  728  in  Round's  Calendar.  According  to  Robert  of  Torigni  and  the 
annals  of  Mont-Saint-Michel  (ed.  Delisle,  i.  234,  ii.  234),  Geoffrey  became  duke 
upon  the  surrender  of  the  tower  of  Rouen  (23  April),  but  a  charter  of  Ulger,  bishop 
of  Angers  (Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  135),  places  29  June  1145  in  the  first  year  of  his 
reign.  Lucius  II  addresses  him  16  May  11 44  as  count  of  Anjou  merely:  Livre  noir 
de  Bayeux,  no.  206. 

2^  Against  the  aimals  of  Saint-Aubin  (Halphen,  Recmil  d'annales  angrdnes,  p. 
1 2), which  give  1 149, and  Miss  Norgate's  argument  for  1148  {Angevin  Kings, 
377;  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  sub  '  Henry  II  '),  the  date  of  1150  seems  to 
me  clearly  established  from  Robert  of  Torigni  (i.  253),  and  the  armals  of  Caen  {H. 
P.,  xii.  780)  and  Saint-fivroul  (Ordericus,  v.  162),  and  especially  from  the  regnal 
years  in  certain  of  Henr>''s  charters.  Gervase  of  Canterburj-  (i.  142),  who  is  not 
quite  clear  as  to  the  year,  gives  January  as  the  month  of  Henry's  return  to  Nor- 
mandy; and  two  charters  for  Savigny,  given  in  the  eighth  year  of  his  reign  as  duke 
and  issued  before  the  beginning  of  April  1157,  show  that  he  became  duke  before  the 
end  of  March  (Delisle,  pp.  122,  231,  279  f.,  515,  nos.  30,  30a;  Berger,  i.  183,  con- 
fuses the  whole  matter  of  these  charters  by  dating  Henry's  reign  from  the  end  of 
1150,  following  an  unsupported  statement  of  Dehsle,  p.  121).  A  charter  of  Arch- 
bishop Hugh  (La  Roque,  iii.  45)  is  dated  1150  '  principante  in  Normannia  duce 
Henrico.'   On  the  other  hand  Geoffrey  drops  the  title  of  duke  in  a  charter  of  28 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


when  the  young  duke  was  in  his  seventeenth  year,  shows  plainly 
that  the  count  of  Anjou  had  won  and  held  Normandy  for  his  son 
and  not  for  himself,  and  earlier  evidence  points  to  the  same  con- 
clusion. Besides  the  few  weeks  which  may  have  intervened  be- 
tween his  return  and  his  assvunption  of  the  ducal  title  in  1150, 
Henry  was  on  the  Norman  side  of  the  Channel  from  the  end  of 

1 146  to  the  spring  of  1149,^^  enjoying  the  instruction  of  the  most 
famous  Norman  scholar  of  the  time,  William  of  Conches,  who 
prepared  for  his  use  a  choice  selection  of  maxims  of  the  Gentile 
philosophers; 28  yet  even  at  this  tender  age  his  name  was  used  to 
give  sanction  to  ducal  acts.  A  charter  for  Bec^^  and  one  for  Sauit- 
Wandrille  are  issued  by  Geoffrey  with  the  advice  and  consent 
of  his  son  Henry;  another  confirmation  for  Bee  and  one  for 
Fecamp    are  issued  by  the  two  jointly;  while  a  document  of 

1 147  for  Saint-Ouen,  attested  by  Geoffrey's  chancellor,  Richard 

October  1150  {Liber  alhis  Cenomannensis,  no.  6;  cf.  Delisle,  p.  138)  and  in  a  notifi- 
cation at  Montreuil,  addressed  to  the  archbishop  of  Rouen,  evidently  in  1150- 
1151  {infra,  note  go). 

On  the  dates  of  Henry's  crossings  see  Round,  Geoffrey  de  Mandemlle,  pp.  405- 

410. 

2*  William's  Dragntaticon  is  dedicated  to  Geoffrey  as  duke  of  Normandy  and 
coimt  of  Anjou  in  an  introduction  which  praises  his  care  for  the  education  of  the 
yoimg  princes  (R.  L.  Poole,  Illuslrations  of  the  History  of  Medieval  Thought,  p.  347  f .) ; 
and  his  treatise  on  moral  philosophy,  De  honesto  et  iitili,  is  dedicated  to  Henry  before 
the  assumption  of  the  ducal  title.  See  this  work,  attributed  to  HUdebert  of  Le 
Mans,  in  Migne,  cLxxi.  1007-1056;  and,  on  its  authorship,  Haureau,  in  Notices  et 
exlraits  des  MSS.,  xxxiii,  i,  pp.  257-263.  Curiously  enough,  it  was  used  by  Giraldus 
Cambrensis  in  writing  the  De  principis  instrnctione,  where  Henry  II  serves  as  a 
terrible  example.  Adelard  of  Bath  also  appears  to  have  been  one  of  Henry's  tutors: 
E.  H.  R.,  xxviii.  516. 

'  Non  lateat  vos  nec  quenquam  presentium  sive  futurorum  me  consilio  H.  filii 
mei  et  baronum  meorum  concessisse  quod  ecclesiaSancte  Marie  de  Becco  et  monachi 
Ulius  ecclesie  habeant  omnes  consuetudines  et  quietudines  et  libertates  quas  habebant 
in  tempore  H.  regis.  Quapropter  ego  precipio  ut  omnes  res  eiusdem  ecclesie  sint 
quiete  et  hbere  in  terra  et  in  aqua  et  in  piano  et  in  nemore  per  totam  Normanniam 
ab  omni  consuetudine  et  vexatione,  sicut  erant  in  tempore  Henrici  regis  '  (extract 
by  Dom  Jouvelin-Thibault,  in  MS.  Lat.  13905,  f.  85V). 

Round,  no.  170;  DeUsle-Berger,  no.  g*;  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  78. 

^  "  Geofroy  due  de  Normandie  et  d'Anjou,  Henri  2**  son  fils,  confirment  et  de- 
clarent  que  monachi  de  Becco  et  omnes  res  eonim  sunt  quiete  de  theloneo  et  passagio 
et  pontagio  et  de  omni  consuetudine,  sicut  a  retroactis  temporibus  fuerunt  apud 
Archas  et  apud  Diepam  ":  MS.  Lat.  13905,  f.  85V. 

"  Delisle,  p.  508,  no.  6*,  and  facsimile  no.  i;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  8*. 


132 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


of  Bohun,  is  given  by  Henricus  dticis  N ormannorum  et  comitis 
Andegavie  filius  and  addressed  to  his  officers  of  Normandy.-^''  We 
should  also  expect  to  find  the  empress  taking  an  active  part  in 
Norman  affairs;  but  her  absence  in  England  from  1139  to  1148 
removed  her  from  any  share  in  the  events  of  these  critical  years 
on  the  Continent,  nor  has  any  trace  been  found  of  her  participa- 
tion in  her  husband's  administration  after  her  return.  The  lack  of 
documents  which  can  be  specifically  referred  to  these  two  years 
is,  however,  probably  accidental,  for  we  have  a  grant  of  land  at 
Argentan  to  one  of  her  followers  before  her  departure  for  Eng- 
land,^^  and  several  charters,  issued  in  her  own  name  or  conjointly 
with  her  son,  which  show  her  activity  in  the  years  immediately 
following  his  accession. 

The  sources  of  information  for  the  study  of  Geoffrey's  govern- 
ment of  Normandy  are  remarkably  scanty  and  fragmentary.  The 
narrative  writers  fail  us  entirely,  for  Ordericus  stops  before  the 
conquest  is  completed,  and  Robert  of  Torigni  and  John  of  Mar- 
moutier  give  us  nothing  beyond  an  eniuneration  of  campaigns. 
We  are  perforce  restricted  to  the  charters,  among  which  those  of 
the  duke  himself,  about  forty  in  number,  are  so  fundamental  as 
to  call  for  somewhat  special  examination.  The  following  list  in- 

^  Neuslria  Pia,  p.  15;  La  Roque,  iv.  suppl.,  p.  10;  Delisle,  p.  508,  no.  3*;  De- 
lisle-Berger,  no.  5*.  Delisle  and  Berger  query  the  date,  but  we  know  that  Henry 
was  solemnly  received  at  Bee  on  Ascension  Day,  1147  (Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  243). 
Henry  likewise  makes  a  grant  to  the  nuns  of  Almeneches  as  son  of  Duke  Geoffrey: 
Delisle,  Cartulaire  normand,  no.  5 ;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  7*. 

Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  140,  and  the  older  Norman  writers  give  1147  as  the  year 
of  her  return,  which  took  place  '  ante  Quadragisimam.'  There  is  some  imcertainty 
because  of  the  confusion  of  chronologj'  —  which  is,  however,  less  than  has  been 
supposed  (see  Round,  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  pp.  405-410)  —  in  Ger\'ase  of  Canter- 
bury, but  as  he  (i.  133)  places  MatUda's  return  after  the  death  of  Robert  of  Glouces- 
ter (31  October  1147)  and  just  before  the  council  of  Rheims  (21  March  1148),  it 
would  seem  to  fall  in  1148.  Rossler,  iTowenM  Mathilde,  pp.  410-412,  assumes  1147, 
but  his  book  has  no  value  for  Matilda's  later  years. 

Origmal  in  MS.  Lat.  10083,  3,  analyzed  ia  M.  A.  N.,  viii.  388;  Delisle, 
p.  141,  no.  4;  Round,  no.  591.  As  this  charter  is  given  at  Argentan  and  witnessed 
by  Matilda's  brother  Reginald,  who  attests  as  earl  of  Cornwall  after  1141  (Round, 
Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  pp.  68,  271),  it  must  be  anterior  to  her  departure  in  1139. 

Delisle,  pp.  126,  141-143,  nos.  5-13;  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  11*,  45*.  See  also 
her  charters  for  Silly,  Round,  Calendar, nos,.  679 f.,  683;  a.n.dSarum  Charters,  p.  14 
(1148). 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


eludes  such  Norman  charters  of  Geoffrey  as  I  have  been  able  to 
find,  arranged,  since  few  of  them  are  dated,  in  the  alphabetical 
order  of  the  places  for  whose  benefit  they  were  issued : 

Almeneches.   Delisle,  Cartulaire  normand,  no.  4,  and  p.  273. 

Bayeux.  Probably  1 145-1 147.  Eight  charters  and  writs  of  Geoffrey:  Livre 
noir,  nos.  16-19,  24,  25,  39,  100  (1147).  Also  four  reports  addressed  to  him 
by  his  justices:  nos.  43,  44,  89,  90.  These  are  all,  except  no.  100,  attributed 
to  Henry  II  in  the  edition  (see,  however,  the  corrections  at  the  end  of  the 
second  volume),  but  in  the  cartulary  the  initial  G  appears  in  every  case  on 
the  margin.  See  A.  H.  R.,  viii.  618;  infra,  Chapter  VI;  Dehsle,  Henri  II, 
pp.  137  f.,  511,  nos.  42*,  43*,  where  the  attribution  of  the  last  two  to  Henry 
II  is  corrected  by  Berger,  i.  3.  No.  17  is  also  in  the  Livre  rouge  (MS.  Lat. 
n.  a.  1828,  no.  401),  of  which  there  is  a  poor  edition  by  AnquetU  (Bayeux, 
1909). 

Bec.   Extracts  from  two  charters,  printed  above,  notes  29,  31. 

Bec,  priory  of  Notre-Dame-du-Pre.  27  March  1149,  at  Bec.  Original, 
printed  below,  no.  2. 

Bec,  priory  of  Saint- Ymer.  1147,  at  Saumur.  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  2097,  p.  9; 
Collection  Lenoir  at  Semilly,bcxii,  2,  p.  169.  Cartulaires  de  S.-Ymer-en-Auge 
ei  de  Bricquebec,  ed.  C.  Breard  (Paris,  1908),  p.  7;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  360; 
DeHsle,  no.  3*  A;  cf.  Delisle-Berger,  i.  2. 

Cluny.  Before  1147,  it  is  attested  by  Hugh,  archbishop  of  Tours.  A. 
Bruel,  Charles  de  Cluni,  v.  447;  cf.  G.  F.  Duckett,  Charlers  and  Records  of 
Cluni,  ii.  78.  In  Martene  and  Diu-and,  Thesaurus  Anecdolorum,  i.  383,  it  is 
attributed  to  a  duke  R. 

Coutances.  At  Saint-L6.  A.  E.  R.,  viii.  630;  infra,  Chapter  VI,  note 
95.  Cf.  Dehsle,  Carlulaire  normand,  no.  162;  Henri  II,  no.  17*  A;  DeUsle- 
Berger,  i.  2.  Ascribed  to  Henry  II  by  Round,  no.  960. 

EvREtra.    At  Rouen.    Printed  below,  no.  6. 

Fecamp,  (i)  At  Rouen.  Original,  misplaced,  in  Archives  of  the  Seine- 
Inferieure;  modern  copies  in  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1245,  ff.  122-123;  MS.  Rouen, 
1210,  f.  17.''  (2)  With  his  son  Heiu-y;  at  Rouen.  Original,  in  same  archives. 
Delisle,  Henri  II,  no.  6*,  with  facsimile;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  8*;  Round,  no. 
126,  omitting  most  of  the  witnesses. 

Lessay.    At  Saumur.  Original,  printed  below,  no.  3. 

Lisieux,  Saint -Desir,  and  the  Knights  of  the  Hospital.  1147,  after 
Easter  (?'in  Pascha  precedenti'),  at  Mirebeau.  Modern  copies  in  Archives 
of  the  Calvados.  Extract  in  Grente  and  Havard,  Villedieu-les-Poeles 
(Paris,  1899),  p.  6;  Roimd,  no.  576,  where  it  is  dated  at  Easter  and  the  wit- 

'  Gaufredus  dux  Normarmonim  et  comes  Andegavorum  omnibus  hominibus 
Fiscanni  salutem.  Sciatis  me  vidisse  cartam  ecclesie  Fiscanni  que  testatur  ecclesie 
Fiscanni  portus  maris  de  Stigas  usque  ad  Leregant.  Ideo  mando  vobis  et  prohibeo 
quod  YDS  non  Lntromittatis  de  aliqua  re  que  ad  portus  istos  veniat  vel  sit,  nisi  per 
manum  Henrici  abbatis  vel  servientium  suorum,  quia  in  ipsis  nichil  habeo.  Teste 
Raginaldo  de  Sancto  Walerico  apud  Rothomagum.' 


134 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


nesses  are  omitted;  M.  A.  N.,  xiv.  382,  xvii.  325  (translation).  Lechaude, 
M.  A.  N.,  vii.  247,  ascribes  it  to  William  Rufus! 

Maruoutier,  priory  of  HeauvUle.  At  Argentan.   Printed  below,  no.  7a. 

MoNTEBOURG.  (i)  At  Argentan.  Printed  below,  no.  4.  (2)  At  Lisieux. 
Printed  below,  no.  5. 

MoRTEMER.  II  October  1147,  at  Rouen.  La  Roque,  iii.  152,  iv.  1396, 
1636,  suppl.,  p.  8;  Neustria  Pia,  p.  779.  Analyzed  in  Bulletin  des  Antiquaires 
de  Normandie,  xiii.  115;  Round,  no.  1405;  cf.  H.  P.,  xiv.  511.^ 

Preaux.  1 149,  at  Rouen.  Notice  of  transaction  in  cwria  sitting  at  Geof- 
frey's order.  Archives  of  the  Eure,  H.  711,  no.  453.  Printed  in  VaHn,  p. 
265;  cf.  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  iii.  324. 

Rouen,  cathedral.  At  Rouen.  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  G.  7, 
p.  793.  Printed  in  Valin,  p.  266  (where  the  undeciphered  word  is  scilicet); 
Delisle-Berger,  no.  39*.  The  initial  is  left  blank  in  the  cartulary,  so  that  the 
author  may  be  either  Geoffrey  or  Heru^^  II.  Delisle,  no  37*,  ascribes  it  to 
Henry,  but  gives  no  reason.  Geoffrey's  authorship  seems  to  me  Hkely  from 
the  phrase  '  tempore  H.  regis  Anglie,'  for  in  such  cases  (e.  g.,  Livre  noir  de 
Bayeux,  nos.  27,  28,  32;  Neustria  Pia,  p.  15)  Henry  II  adds  '  a\a  mei,'  as 
in  the  writ  for  Heauville  (Delisle-Berger,  no.  29*),  which  we  can  compare 
with  an  exactly  parallel  one  of  his  father  (no.  7a  below). 

Rouen,  town.  Probably  in  1 144  and  doubtless  at  Rouen.  Incorporated 
in  Henry  II's  charter:  A.  Cheruel,  Eistoire  de  Rouen,  i.  241;  Round,  no. 
109;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  14*. 

Rouen,  gild  of  cordwainers.  At  Rouen.  Vidimus  of  1267  in  MS.  Lat. 
9067,  f.  155V,  and  MS.  Rouen  2192,  f.  189.  Printed  from  vidimus  of  1371 
(Archives  Nationales,  JJ.  102,  no.  317)  in  Ordonnances  des  Rois,  v.  416; 
translated  in  Cheruel,  Rouen,  i,  p.  cxiv.   Cf.  Delisle-Berger,  no.  16*. 

Rouen,  Henry  the  Marshal,  the  duke's  Serjeant.  Probably  before  1147, 
at  Rouen.   Printed  below,  no.  13. 

Rou'EN,  leprosery  of  Mont-aux-Malades.  (i)  At  Rouen.  Original  writ, 
printed  below,  no.  12.  (2)  Charter  notifying  the  reception  of  the  Palmers 
of  Rouen  into  confraternity:  translation  in  P.  Langlois,  Eistoire  du  pricure 
du  Mont-aux-Malades-les-Rouen  (Rouen,  1851),  p.  4. 

Rouen,  Saint-Amand.   At  Lisieux.  Printed  below,  no.  7. 

Rouen,  Saint-Ouen.  '  Gaufredus  dux  Normannorum  et  comes  Ande- 
gavorum  confirmat  donationem  c[omitis]  Walterii  Giffardi.  Testibus  Ro- 
berto de  Novoburgo,  Widone  de  Sabluel.'  MS.  Lat.  5423,  f.  232V. 

Saint-Andre -EN-GoLTFERN.  At  Argentan.  Printed  below,  no.  10. 

SAiNT-fivROUL.  Probably  in  1144.  Printed  below,  no.  8. 

Satnt-Wandrille.  (i)  At  Rouen.  Printed  E.  E.  R.,  xxvii.  438,  note  97; 
Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  119.  (2)  At  Argentan.  Neustria  Pia,  p.  176  (extract) ; 
Round,  no.  170;  in  full  in  Lot,  no.  78;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  9*. 

Savigny.  (i)  At  Argentan.  Original,  Archives  Nationales.  L.  969; 
cartulary  in  Archives  of  the  Manche,  no.  408;  Round,  no.  812.   (2)  At  Ar- 

The  epact  in  this  charter  is  of  1148,  showing  that  it  was  calculated  from  i 
September,  as  in  a  charter  of  Geoffrey  in  the  Cartulaire  de  S.-Laud  d' Angers,  no.  49. 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET  I35 

gentan.  FMfiWM5,  printed  below,  no.  11.  (3)  At  Montreuil;  1150-1151. 
Original,  printed  below,  note  90. 

Seez,  Saint-Martin.    Printed  below,  no.  9. 

For  a  reign  of  six  years  this  is  a  respectable  number  of  docu- 
ments, if  we  take  into  account  the  relatively  small  body  of  Nor- 
man charters  which  has  survived  from  the  first  half  of  the  twelfth 
century,  and  their  geographical  distribution  is  significant.  Four 
of  the  episcopal  sees  are  represented,  the  archives  of  the  others 
being  an  almost  total  loss,  and  the  monasteries  of  the  Ust  are 
scattered  throughout  the  duchy,  from  the  ancient  establishments 
in  the  region  of  the  Seine  to  Montebourg,  Heauville,  Lessay,  and 
Savigny  on  the  west.  All  this  bears  evidence  of  an  effective  rule  of 
the  whole  land.  At  the  same  time  it  is  noteworthy  that,  if  we 
except  the  charter  for  the  town  of  Rouen,  which  was  granted 
under  special  circimistances,  there  are  among  them  all  no  general 
eniunerations  and  confirmations  of  lands  and  privileges  such  as 
are  found  under  Henry  I  and  in  still  greater  number  under 
Henry  11.^'  What  we  have  instead  is  specific  grants,  letters  of 
protection,  declarations  of  freedom  from  toll,  and  orders  to  the 
duke's  officers  to  hold  inquests,  make  payments,  and  maintain 
rights.  The  writs  bulk  large  in  proportion  to  the  charters.  This 
cannot  be  mere  accident,  for  the  detailed  confirmations  which  are 
so  numerous  under  Henry  II  rarely  mention  his  father,*"  but  hark 
back  constantly  to  the  conditions  of  his  grandfather's  time.  We 
get  distinctly  the  impression  of  a  reign  which  restores  rather  than 
creates,  and  administers  rather  than  ordains,  of  a  regency  rather 
than  a  permanent  government. 

Considered  from  the  diplomatic  point  of  view,  Geoffrey's  char- 
ters show  variety,  but  they  also  show  something  of  the  regularity 
and  definiteness  of  form  which  come  only  from  an  organized 

"  An  apparent  exception,  the  long  charter  for  Bayeux  {Livre  noir,  no.  39),  is 
merely  a  statement  of  the  results  of  inquests  held  to  determine  the  ancient  rights  of 
the  see.  The  difference  from  the  poUcy  of  other  dukes  may  be  seen  even  in  the  case 
of  Stephen  by  comparing  his  detailed  confirmation  for  Montebourg  {Gallia  Christi- 
ana, xi,  Lnstr.  238)  with  the  charters  of  Geoffrey  for  the  same  abbey  printed  below, 
nos.  4,  5- 

Later  references  to  Geoffrey's  ofiScial  acts  are  rare.  See  jw/ra,  notes  89,  gi,  121; 
Round,  no.  1296;  and  the  grant  to  Aunay  cited  in  a  bull  of  Eugene  III  {Bulletin  des 
Antiquaires  de  Normandie,  xix.  256). 


136  NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 

chancery.  That  Normandy  had  the  advantage  of  such  a  system 
under  Henry  I  is  of  course  well  known,  but  we  carmot  speak  with 
equal  certainty  of  conditions  in  contemporary  Anjou.  Down  to 
the  close  of  the  eleventh  century  the  counts  of  Anjou,  like  the 
kings  of  France,  had  not  entirely  differentiated  their  chancery 
from  their  chapel,  the  same  man  appearing  at  one  time  as  chaplain 
and  at  another  as  chancellor,  nor  had  they  developed  a  regular 
set  of  forms  for  their  official  acts.  Until  1109  at  least,  the  only 
period  which  has  been  carefully  studied,  almost  all  of  their  docu- 
ments were  drawn  up  by  the  monasteries  in  whose  favor  they 
were  issued,^i  and  the  evidence  of  style  would  indicate  that  this 
custom  persisted  in  large  measure  under  Fulk  of  Jerusalem  and 
even  under  his  son.  Geoffrey's  Angevin  charters  have  something 
of  the  variety,  the  prolixity,  and  the  narrative  form  which  belong 
to  the  monastic  notice  rather  than  to  the  charter  proper,  and 
which  are  in  sharp  contrast  with  the  brevity  and  fixity  which  the 
Anglo-Norman  charter,  and  especially  the  writ,  has  attained 
before  the  close  of  the  Conqueror's  reign. 

Still,  mention  is  found  from  time  to  time  of  the  chaplain  or 
notary  who  composed  the  document,  and  especially  of  Thomas  of 
Loches,  the  historian  of  the  counts  of  Anjou,  whose  attestation 
appears  as  early  as  1133  and  continues  as  chaplain  or  chancellor 
throughout  the  reign.*^  Thomas  also  accompanied  Geoffrey  on 
his  Norman  expeditions,  for  his  signature  as  chancellor  appears  in 
documents  issued  at  Argentan,  Lisieux,  and  Rouen,  and  he  wit- 
nesses as  chaplain  a  charter  given  at  Bee  in  1149.^^  Curiously 
enough,  this  last  document  bears  likewise  the  name  of  the  duke's 
principal  chancellor,  Richard  of  Bohun.  Dean  of  Bayeux  since 

^  Halphen,  Le  comte  d' Anjou,  pp.  192  f .,  237.  For  the  confusion  of  chancellor  and 
chaplain  under  the  Capetians  see  Prou,  Recueil  des  actes  de  Philippe  I"',  pp.  liv-lvi. 

^  On  Thomas  see  Mabille's  introduction  to  Marchegay,  Chroniques  des  comtes 
d' Anjou,  pp.  xiv-xxv;  Beautemps-Beaupre,  Coutumes,  part  ii,  i.  220-222;  and 
now  the  introduction  to  Halphen  and  Poupardin,  Chroniques  des  comtes  d' Anjou, 
pp.  xxvii-xxxvi. 

^  Infra,  nos.  2,  4-7a.  Thomas  is  mentioned  in  a  writ  of  the  empress  for  Cher- 
bourg (Delisle,  Henri  II,  no.  84*;  Round,  no.  938)  in  a  way  that  suggests  (particu- 
larly if  we  conjecture  '  tenuerunt '  in  the  missing  portion)  that  Geoffrey  may  have 
given  him  some  part  of  the  considerable  possessions  of  Roger  of  SaUsbury  (cf. 
Round,  no.  909)  in  the  Cotentin. 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


the  days  of  Henry  I,  Richard  bought  the  chancellorship  from 
Geoffrey  by  pledging  the  income  of  his  deanery  for  an  amount 
which  he  had  much  difficulty  in  paying  and  which  subsequently 
brought  him  into  trouble  with  his  bishop  and  with  the  Pope;  and 
in  1 151  he  was  rewarded  with  the  bishopric  of  Coutances.^*  Nine 
of  Geoffrey's  charters  and  writs  bear  his  attestation,^^  and  as  one 
of  these  is  dated  at  Saumur,^^  it  is  plain  that  he  followed  the  duke 
beyond  the  confines  of  Normandy.  No  chronological  separation 
between  the  charters  of  Richard  and  Thomas  seems  possible: 
the  Bayeux  writs  attested  by  Richard  belong  to  the  early  years  of 
the  reign;  two  of  the  others  fall  in  1147  and  one  in  1149;  and 
he  appears  as  chancellor  in  five  documents  issued  by  Henry  11.^' 
Probably  the  explanation  is  that  Richard  was  chancellor  in  Nor- 
mandy and  Thomas  chaplain,  as  in  the  charter  for  Bee,  but  that 
in  Richard's  absence  Thomas  took  the  title  and  perhaps  the  func- 
tions of  chancellor,  which  he  had  claimed  in  Anjou  as  early  as 
1142.^° 

Richard's  work  can  be  tested  in  two  originals,  issued  at  places 
as  far  apart  as  Bee  and  Saumur,  but  written  by  the  same  scribe 

^  '  Postmodum  vero  venientis  ad  nos  venerabilis  fratris  nostri  Philippi  Baiocensis 
episcopi  suggestione  accepimus  quod  antedictus  frater  noster  pecuniam  illam,  non 
pro  ecclesie  Baiocensis  utilitate  aut  sui  honesta  necessitate  suscepit,  sed  ut  cancel- 
lariam  sibi  nobilis  memorie  Gaufridi  quondam  Andegavensis  comitis  compararet,  et 
cum  in  capitulo  Baiocensi  se  infra  biennium  soluturum  eandem  pecuniam  promisis- 
set,  licet  multum  post  decanatum  habuerit,  debitum  tamen  ipsum,  ut  promiserat, 
nequaquam  exsolvit '  {Livre  noir,  no.  185).  As  Richard  continued  to  hold  the 
deanery,  not  only  for  two  years  but '  multum  post,'  he  evidently  became  chancellor 
not  long  after  Geoffrey's  conquest  of  the  duchy.  He  had  been  dean  under  Bishop 
Richard  Fitz  Samson  {ibid.,  no.  480),  who  died  in  1133,  and  is  mentioned  with  this 
title  in  several  Bayeux  documents:  ihid.,  nos.  60,  100  (1147),  103  (1146),  106,  207 
(1146),  291;  cf.  Delisle-Berger,  no.  20*  (1151).  On  the  date  of  his  elevation  to  the 
bishopric  see  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  257  and  note;  and  cf .  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  35*,  45*. 

^5  Livre  noir,  nos.  17, 19,  39;  Round,  nos.  126  (=  Delisle,  no.  6*,  with  facsimile; 
Delisle-Berger,  no.  8*),  170,  960,  1405;  infra,  nos.  2,  3. 

Infra,  no.  3.       ^'  Round,  no.  1405;  Neustria  Pia,  p.  15.  Infra,  no.  2. 

*^  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  5*,  12*,  28*,  40*,  42*.   Delisle,  p.  88,  note,  is  incorrect. 
Cartulaire  de  I'abbaye  du  Ronceray,  ed.  Marchegay,  p.  244  {Archives  d' Anjou, 
iii) .  Halphen  and  Poupardin,  /.  c,  p.  xxix,  doubt  whether  Thomas  was  really  chan- 
cellor, the  title  being  at  times  taken  by  a  mere  notary. 

That  Richard  was  not  himself  the  scribe  is  seen  from  the  recurrence  of  the 
same  hand  in  the  notice  printed  below  (note  90),  issued  by  Geoffrey  as  count  of 
Anjou  at  Montreuil-Bellay  in  1150-1151,  in  which  Richard  is  not  mentioned. 


138 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


and  showing  such  resemblances  in  their  formulae  that  the  first, 
excellently  preserved  with  its  seal,  may  safely  be  used  to  supply 
some  of  the  gaps  in  the  mutilated  text  of  the  second.  These  are: 

(2)  G.  dux  Norm[annorum]  &  com[es]  And[egavorum]  H.  archiep[iscop]o 
&  omnibus  ep[iscop]is  comitibus  baronibus  iusticiis  Norm[annie]  &  omni- 
bus suis  fidelibus  £al[utem].  Notum  sit  vobis  atque  omnibus  tam  presentibus 
quam  futuris  quod  ego  dedi  &  concessi  monachis  Sanctg  Marie  de  Becco  tres 
prebendas  de  Buris,  ea  conditione  quod  post  quam  ill§  fuerint  liberate  a 
tribus  presentibus  clericis,  scilicet  Ivone  Hugone  atque  Alexandro,  monachi 
Sanct§  Marig  de  Prato  illas  perpetuo  libere  &  quiete  possideant.  Huius  rei 
sunt  testes:  Ric[ardus]  cancell[arius],  Gaufr[edus]  Roth[omagensis]  decanus, 
Tomas  capeUanus,  Robertus  de  Movoburg[o]  {sic)  &  alii  quam  plures.  Hoc 
autem  concessum  est  anno  ab  incarnatione  Domini  .M.C.XLIX.  in  Pascha 
instanti  die  dominica  de  ramis  palmarum  in  Beccensi  capitulo.^^ 

(3)  G.  dux  Norm[annorum]  et  comes  And[egavorum]  H.  archiepiscopo  & 
omnibus  ep[iscopis  comitibus]  baronibus  iusticiis  &  omnibus  suis  servienti- 
bus  salutem.  [Notum  sit  vobis]  atque  omnibus  hominibus  tam  presentibus 
quam  futuris  quod  ego  concessi  donationem  quam  Willelmus  de  AureavaUe 
fecit  ecclesig  Sanctg  Trinitatis  de  Exaquio,  videlicet  de  molendino  de  Sancta 
Oportuna  quod  predictg  ecclesi§  dedit  cum  omnibus  consuetudinibus  &  molta 
&  omnibus  rebus  que  ad  iUud  molendinum  pertinebant  &  de  parte  ilia  quam 
in  ecclesia  Sanctg  Oportun§  habebat  [ecclesi§]  Exaquii  dedit  sicut  carta  illius 
testatur.  &  ut  hec  dona[tio  et  concessio]  perpetuo  fiat  sigiUi  mei  testimonio 
illam  confirmari  [T]estes  autem  inde  sunt  Ric[ardus]  cancel- 
larius,  Willelmus  de  Vernone,  Engelg[erus]  de  Boh[one],  Alex[ander] 
de  Boh[one],  Robertus  de  Montef[orti],  de  Sancto  lohanne, 
Rualocus  de  Saeio,  Iosl[inus]  de  T3T[ombus],  Pi[ppinus  de  Tyronibus],  Wil- 
lelmus de  [Sai  ?],  Adam  de  Sotewast.   Apud  Salmur[am].'^ 

Original,  sealed  cn  double  queue,  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure.  See  the 
facsimile,  Plate  7  b.  Cf.  G.  Demay,  Invenlaire  des  sceaux  de  la  Normandie,  no.  20; 
Poree,  Bee.  i.  397.  The  phrase  '  in  Pascha  instanti '  seems  at  first  sight  to  indicate 
that  the  style  of  Easter  was  here  used,  which  would  bring  the  date  9  April  1150. 
This  is,  however,  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  Henry  had  by  this  time  become 
duke  {supra,  note  26),  and  we  should  need  stronger  evidence  to  establish  so  striking 
a  variation  from  the  practice  of  beginning  the  year  at  Christmas  or  i  January,  which 
prevailed  in  both  Normandy  and  Anjou  (Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  230;  Halphen,  Le 
comle  d'' Anjou,  pp.  237-239).  Evidently  the  phrase  has  no  reference  to  the  beginning 
of  the  year,  as  is  likewise  true  of  'in  Pascha  precedenti'  in  the  charters  of  1147  in 
Neustria  Pia,  pp.  15,  779,  in  the  latter  of  which,  dated  11  October,  the  reference 
to  Easter  could  have  no  significance  under  any  system  of  reckoning,  a  fact  over- 
looked by  Berger,  Henri  II,  no.  5*.  The  Bee  charter  belongs  accordingly  to  27 
March  1149. 

"  Original,  with  double  queue,  but  no  trace  of  seal,  in  Archives  of  the  Manche, 
H.  7771.  Printed  in  Inventaire  sommaire;  cf.  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  509,  no.  i7*B; 
Berger,  i.  2. 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


No  originals  have  been  discovered  from  the  hand  of  the  chan- 
cellor Thomas,  but  we  can  follow  him  with  some  confidence  in 
certain  early  copies.  Let  us  begin  with  two  charters  in  the 
cartulary  of  Montebourg: 

(4)  Ego  Goffr[edus]  dux  Norm[annoruni]  et  comes  And[egavorum]  rela- 
tione multorum  cognoscens  audiendo  et  audiens  cognoscendo  quoniam  H. 
rex  predecessor  meus  abbatiam  Montisburgi  Sancte  Marie  tanquam  pro- 
priam  capellam  nimio  dilexit  amore  diligendo  custodivit  augmentavit  no- 
bilitavit,  similiter  abbatiam  eamdem  in  mea  custodia  et  in  tuitione  capio  et 
quicquid  ille  contulit  vel  concessit  in  bosco  et  in  piano  et  in  omnibus  con- 
suetudinibus  et  in  omnibus  modis  unde  habent  monachi  cartas  et  brevia 
prefate  abbatie  diligenter  annuo.  Insuper  illi  addo  do  et  concedo  in  perpe- 
tuam  elemosinam  perpetuo  iure  habendam  pro  salute  mea  et  filiorum  meorum 
necnon  et  predicti  regis  omniumque  predecessorum  meorum  iUam  terram 
que  est  in  suo  aisimento  inter  suam  terram  et  forestam  usque  ad  rivulum 
sicut  oritur  et  descendit  de  veteri  fonte,  et  ipsum  rivulum  cum  alveo  concedo 
ita  ut  rivulus  fosseatus  sit  firma  divisa  inter  eos  et  forestam,  cum  constet 
quia  redditus  nichil  inde  foreste  minuitur  sed  melius  clauditur  munitur  atque 
defenditur. 

Testibus  Thoma  cancell[ario],  Alex[andro]  de  Boh[one],  Ric[ardo]  de  Haia, 
Ric[ardo]  de  Wauvilla,  W[ille!mo]  Avenel,  Olivier  de  Albiniaco,  Gisleb[erto] 
archid[iacono],  Rob[erto]  de  Valoniis,  Rob[erto]  Bordel,  Unfr[edo]  de  Bose- 
vill[a]  et  aliis  multis,  apud  Argent[omum]. 

(s)  Ego  Gaufridus  comes  Andegavis  {sic)  et  dux  Normannorum  cunctis 
baronibus  meis  vicecomitibus  ministris  et  omnibus  hominibus  meis  salutem. 
Sciatis  quod  habeo  in  mea  propria  custodia  abbatiam  de  Monteburgo  omnes 
monachos  et  omnes  res  ad  eos  pertinentes  tanquam  meam  propriam  elemo- 
sinam sicut  habuit  rex  Henricus  antecessor  meus,  et  concedo  abbatie  et 
ipsis  monachis  quicquid  concessit  eis  predictus  rex  in  omnibus  rebus  et  in 
omnibus  consuetudinibus  et  unde  habent  ipsius  regis  cartas  et  brevia,  et  ut 
habeant  omnes  consuetudines  suas  in  forestis  meis  liberas  et  quietas  et  focum 
in  Monteburgo,  et  ut  sint  quieti  a  theloneo  et  consuetudine  ubicunque  ven- 
dant  vel  emant  vel  conducant  aliquid  quod  homines  eorum  possint  affidare 
esse  proprium  ecclesie  et  monachorum,  et  omnes  donationes  baronum  quas 
dederunt  vel  dederint  ipsi  ecclesie.  Precipio  igitur  vobis  ut  abbatiam  et 
quicquid  ad  earn  pertinet  manuteneatis  et  defendatis  et  regatis  sicut  meam 
propriam  elemosinam,  ne  pro  penuria  recti  inde  clamorem  audiam. 

T[estibus]  WiU[elmo]  de  Vernon,  Alex[andro]  de  Bohun,  Pag[ano]  de 
Claris  Vallibus,  Th[oma]  cancellario,  Rob[erto]  de  Curc[eio],  apud  Luxovium. 
-t-  Preterea  concedo  eidem  abbatie  coram  supradictis  testibus  illam  terram 
que  est  inter  suam  terram  et  forestam  usque  ad  rivum  et  ipsum  rivum  sicut 
descendit  de  veteri  fonte  et  quoddam  warlocum  quod  est  in  altera  parte. 


"  MS.  Lat.  10087,  HQS.  35,  36. 


140 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


The  first  of  these  uses  a  comparatively  untechnical  phraseology 
and  has  something  of  the  more  literary  flavor  of  the  Angevin 
charter.  The  second,  from  its  substance  evidently  posterior,  is 
full  of  the  legal  terminology  of  the  charters  of  Henry  I  on  which  it 
is  based,^^  and  culminates  with  the  characteristically  Norman 
clause,  ne  pro  penuria  recti  inde  clamorem  audiam.^^  Such  repeti- 
tions of  the  language  of  earHer  charters  for  the  same  establish- 
ment are  perfectly  natural  and  are  famihar  to  all  students  of 
diplomatics."  When,  however,  we  find  Thomas  adopting  the 
brevity  and  precision  of  the  Anglo-Norman  writ,  as  well  as  its 
typical  phrases,  we  see  how  thoroughly  Norman  an  institution  the 
chancery  of  Geoffrey  has  become.  The  first  of  the  following  re- 
lates to  the  see  of  Evrexix,  the  second  to  the  nuns  of  Saint-Amand, 
the  third  to  Heauville,  a  priory  of  Marmoutier: 

(6)  G.  dux  Normann[orum]  et  comes  And[egavoruin]  G[uidoni]  de  Sablo- 
l[io]  et  Will[elino]  Lovello  atque  prepositis  et  ballivis  suis  de  Vernolio  et  de 
Nonancort  salutem  et  dilectionem.  Mando  atque  vobis  precipio  quod 
episcopo  Ebroicensi  reddatis  omnes  decimas  suas  de  Vernol[io]  et  de  Nonan- 
cort sicut  eas  umquam  melius  habuit  in  tempore  H.  regis  et  sicut  carta  eius 
garantizat,  ita  quod  eas  habeat  prout  tempus  ierit  ad  voluntatem  suam,  et 
de  tempore  transacto  quicquid  ei  debet ur  absque  dilatione  reddatis.  Insuper 
etiam  vobis  precipio  ne  quid  inde  amittat  neque  pro  refactura  molendinonmi 
neque  pro  augmentatione  reddite  supradictarum  villarum.  De  pace  vero 
fracta  mando  vobis  quod  ei  inde  quicquid  habere  debuerit  plenarie  reddi 
facialis,  scilicet  .ix.  libras  sicut  carta  H.  regis  garantizat.  Tibi  etiam,  Wil- 
lelme  Lovel,  precipio  quod  iusticiam  ei  facias  de  Gilleberto  nummario  (.''). 
Teste  Thoma  cancellario  apud  Rothomagiun.'* 

(7)  G.  dux  Normann[orum]  et  comes  Andfegavorum]  R.  de  Sancto  Wa- 
lerico  et  ministris  suis  de  Archis  salutem.  Precipio  quod  habere  faciatis  S. 
Amando  decimam  suam  de  forestis  de  Awi  et  de  Alihermont  in  denariis 

Supra,  Chapter  III,  nos.  8-15;  Delisle,  Cartulaire  normand,  no.  737. 

E.  H.  R.,  xxvi.  446  f.  Can  we  see  Thomas's  hand  in  a  writ  of  Geoffrey  in  1146, 
mentioned  in  a  notice  from  La  Trinite  de  Vendome  {Cartulaire,  ii.  343) ,  where  we 
have  '  ne  amplius  super  hoc  clamorem  audiret '  ? 

"  An  excellent  illustration  is  furnished  by  the  charter  of  Geoffrey  and  Henry  for 
Fecamp  (Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  508,  no.  6*,  with  facsimile;  DeUsle-Berger,  no.  8*), 
which  reproduces  the  language  of  the  early  grants  of  immunity:  '  absque  ulla  in- 
quietatione  vel  imminutione  secularis  vel  iuditiarie  potestatis.'   See  Appendix  B. 

Archives  of  the  Eure,  G.  122,  no.  204,  G.  123,  no.  196,  printed  in  Le  Prevost, 
Eure,  ii.  488,  who  reads  '  munario '  before  the  testing  clause  where  I  conjecture 
'nummario.'  For  the  charter  of  Henry  I  see  Tres  Anclen  Coutumier,  c.  71; 
Round,  Calendar,  no,  2qo. 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


141 


fnunento  et  avena  sicut  earn  melius  habuit  tempore  Henrici  regis,  quia  nolo 
ut  elemosina  mea  minuatur.   Teste  Toma  cancellario  apud  Lux[ovium]." 

(7a)  G.  dux  Norm[annorum]  et  comes  Andeg[avorum]  episcopo  Constan- 
tinensi  et  iusticiis  et  vicecomitibus  et  baronibus  Constantini  salutem.  Pre- 
cipio  et  volo  quod  monachi  Sancti  Martini  Maiorismonasterii  de  Heavilla 
teneant  omnes  terras  et  ecclesias  et  decimas  et  omnes  res  suas  que  pertinent 
ad  elemosinam  meam  de  Heavilla  ita  bene  et  in  pace  et  honorifice  et  iuste 
et  quiete  sicut  melius  et  quietius  tenuerunt  tempore  regis  H.  Et  nemo  eis 
vel  rebus  eorum  ullam  iniuriam  vel  contumeliam  faciat.  Teste  Thoma 
canceUario  apud  Argent[omum].^'' 

The  triumph  of  the  traditions  of  the  Anglo-Norman  chancery- 
can  also  be  seen  in  documents  in  which  no  chancellor  is  men- 
tioned. The  following,  which  probably  belongs  to  the  early  part 
of  1 144,  is  a  good  example  of  a  brevity  which  is  Hterary  rather 
than  legal  in  its  phraseology : 

(8)  Notum  sit  omnibus  tam  futuris  quam  presentibus  quod  ego  Gaufridus 
Andegavorum  comes,  Fulconis  bone  memorie  Iherusalem  regis  filius,  mo- 
nachis  Sancti  Ebrulfi  res  eorum  universas  ita  habendas  et  possidendas  libera 
et  quiete  concedo  et  affirmo,  sicut  habebant  in  tempore  regis  Hainrici  anteces- 
soris  mei.  Et  omnibus  communiter  ne  predictos  monachos  de  rebus  suis  in 
causam  mittant  precipio,  insuper  illis  ne  cum  aliquo  inde  placitentur  pro- 
hibeo,  et  amicis  meis  ubicunque  fuerint,  sicut  me  diligunt,  ut  eos  manuten- 
eant  et  ab  omnibus  defendant  cum  summa  diligentia  submoneo  et  rogo. 

The  next  is  similar,  though  Geoffrey  is  now  duke : 

(9)  Goffridus  dux  Normannorum  et  comes  Andegavensium  omnibus  dapi- 
feris  et  prepositis  villicis  et  servientibus  suis  salutem.  De  his  que  pertinent 
ad  proprium  victum  et  vestitum  monachorum  Sancti  Martini  de  Sagio  et 
serviens  eorundem  monachorum  proprium  esse  eorum  affiducare  poterit, 
nullum  inde  capiatis  teloneum  aut  pedagium  aut  consuetudinem  aliquam 
minimam  vel  magnam.  Quod  si  feceritis  meum  incurretis  odium  et  cum 
sexaginta  solidis  reddetis. 

Copy  by  Gaignieres  in  MS.  Lat.  17031,  p.  137. 

60  Vidimus  of  1524  after  sealed  original,  "  fort  consume  en  queue  simple,"  in 
Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Collection  de  Touraine,  xxxi.  57,  no.  8.  Cf.  A.  H.  R.,  xx. 
29;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  29*. 

Cartulary  of  Saint-Evroul,  MS.  Lat.  11056,  no.  681;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  637. 
In  the  absence  of  place  and  witnesses  this  charter  presents  some  curious  features. 
Geoffrey  speaks  as  successor  of  Henry  I,  yet  he  has  not  taken  the  ducal  title.  The 
news  of  Fulk's  death,  which  occurred  10  November  1143  (R.  Rohricht,  Geschichle 
des  Konigreichs  Jerusalem,  p.  229),  could  hardly  have  reached  his  son  before  the 
capitulation  of  Rouen,  where  Geoffrey  remained  until  his  assumption  of  the  ducal 
title;  yet  a  charter  issued  at  Rouen  in  such  an  ahen  style  is  rather  surprising. 

^  Copy  from  Livre  rouge  of  Seez,  in  MS.  Fr.  18953,  pp.  37,  222. 


142 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


In  the  following  charter  the  same  matter  is  thrown  into  the  legal 
language  of  Henry  I's  time;  indeed,  except  for  the  insertion  of 
sicut  mee  res  proprie,  it  reproduces  exactly  the  terms  of  a  writ  of 
Henry  for  the  same  monastery :  ®^ 

(10)  G.  dux  Nonn[annorum]  comes  And[egavorum]  baronibus  et  omni- 
bus vic[ecomitibus]  et  ministris  tocius  Anglic  et  Normannie  et  portuum 
maris  salutem.  Precipio  quod  totum  oorrodium  et  omnes  res  monachorum 
de  abbatia  de  Vinaz  quas  servientes  eorum  affidare  poterint  pertinere  suo 
dominico  victui  et  vestitui  sint  in  pace  et  quiete  de  theloneo  et  passagio  et 
omnibus  consuetudinibus  sicut  mee  res  proprie.  Et  super  hoc  prohibeo  quod 
nullus  eos  disturbet  iniuste  super  .x.  libras  forisfacture.  Testibus  comite  de 
Pontevio  et  Alexandre  de  Bohun  et  Roberto  de  Noburg'  {sic),  apud  Argen- 
tomum. 

The  following  is  parallel,  but  contains  a  further  provision:  ^ 

(11)  G.  dux  Normannorum  et  comes  Andegav[orum]  omnibus  baronibus 
et  fidelibus  suis  et  ministris  totius  Normannie  et  Cenomaimie  et  portuum 
maris  salutem.  Precipio  quod  totum  corredium  abbatis  de  Savign[eio]  et 
monachorum  suorum  et  abbatum  qui  sunt  de  obediencia  Savign[eii]  et 
omnes  res  quas  ministri  sui  afEdare  poterunt  esse  suas  sint  quiete  de  theloneo 
et  passagio  et  omni  consuetudine  ubicunque  venerint,  et  prohibeo  ne  ullus 
eos  super  hac  re  disturbet  super  decern  libras  forisfacture.  Precipio  etiam 
quod  monachi  Savigneii  totam  terram  suam  et  homines  et  omnes  res  suas  in 
firma  pace  teneant  et  non  inde  placitent,  quia  terra  et  omnes  res  eorum  in 
mea  custodia  et  defensione  sunt  et  nolo  quod  aliquis  eis  inde  contumeHam 
faciat  neque  de  aUqua  re  eos  inquietare  presumat. 

Teste  {sic)  Guidone  de  Sabl[oHo]  et  Alexandro  de  Bohun,  apud  Argen- 
tomagum. 

Another  writ  of  a  well  known  type  is:  ®* 

(12)  G.  dux  Norm[annorum]  et  com[es]  And[egavorum]  vicec[oniitibus] 
Roth[omagensibus]  sal[utem].  Precipio  quod  tradatis  leprosis  Roth[omagen- 
sibus]  xl.  sol[idos]  Roth[omagensium]  singulis  mensibus  sicut  rex  .H.  eis  dedit 
et  carta  eius  testatur. 

T[este]  Rob[erto]  de  Novo  burgo,  apud  Roth[omagu]m. 

^  Cartulary  of  Saint-Andre-en-Gouffem,  in  Archives  of  the  Calvados, f.  22V,  no. 
90;  no.  72  is  the  writ  of  Henry  I.  Note  that  Geoffrey  has  even  let  Anglie  stand. 
This  type  of  writ  is  famihar  in  England;  see,  for  example,  J.  Armitage  Robinson, 
Gilbert  Crispin,  p.  150,  no.  34.  For  a  quite  different  Angevin  form  see  Cartidaire  de 
Tvron,  i.  63. 

"  Copy  of  1237  under  seal  of  William,  bishop  of  Avranches,  in  Archives  of  the 
Manche,/owi5  Savigny. 

^5  Original,  with  fragment  of  simple  queue,  in  Archives  Nationales,  £  23,  15^. 
See  the  facsimile,  Plate  7a.  Printed  in  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  136;  Langlois,  Eistoire 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


Further  illustration  is  unnecessary.  We  recognize  not  only  the 
sobriety,  conciseness,  and  clearness  which  Delisle  notes  as  the 
characteristics  of  the  Anglo-Norman  chancery,®^  but  also  its 
regular  terminology,  such  as  the  address,  the  nisifeceris  clause," 
sicut  umquam  melius  habuit,  ne  inde  amplius  clamorem  audiam,  ita 
bene,  etc.,  and  the  ten  pounds'  penalty  for  infringement.**  In  all 
essential  matters  Geoffrey's  ducal  chancery  was  a  Norman  institu- 
tion, and,  what  is  more  important,  it  was  an  instrument  for 
maintaining  the  rights  which  his  predecessors  had  granted  and 
the  administration  through  which  they  had  governed. 

Since  few  of  Geoffrey's  charters  are  dated,  it  is  impossible  to 
construct  an  itinerary  or  form  any  estimate  of  the  distribution  of 
his  time  between  Normandy  and  Anjou.  He  visited  Normandy 
every  year  of  his  reign  as  duke,*'  but,  apart  from  his  sojourns  at 
Rouen  and  Argentan  and  an  occasional  miHtary  expedition,  the 
only  places  at  which  he  can  be  traced  are  Bayeux,  Bee,  Lisieux, 
and  Saint-L6.  By  far  the  greater  number  of  his  charters  are 
issued  from  Rouen,  which  seems  to  have  acquired  new  importance 
as  the  capital  of  the  duchy.  Geoffrey  rebuilt  the  tower  and  the 

du  prietire  du  Monl-aux-Malades-les-Rouen,  p.  397;  calendared  in  Tardif,  Monu- 
ments historiques,  no.  516. 

Henri  II,  pp.  240-246. 

Livre  noir,  no.  24. 

A  further  indication  of  Norman  influence  is  seen  in  Geoffrey's  second  seal, 
where  he  takes  the  title  of '  dux  Normannorum  '  and  carries  stiU  further  the  imita- 
tion of  the  Norman  type  which  his  father  had  begun.  Only  one  original  of  this  seal 
is  known  to  exist  (see  the  facsimile,  Plate  7b),  attached  to  a  charter  for  Bee,  printed 
above  (no.  2),  and  described  by  Demay,  Inveniaire  des  sceaux  de  la  Normandie,  no. 
20;  but  there  are  also  certain  drawings  (Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  138  f.).  On  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Norman  type  into  Anjou,  see  G.  de  Manteyer,  Le  sceau-malrice  du 
comte  d' Anjou  Foulques  le  Jeune,  in  Memoires  des  Antiquaires  de  France,  Ix.  305- 
338;  on  the  distinction  between  the '  sigUlum  ducatus '  and  the '  sigillum  comitatus,' 
the  Cartulaire  de  S.-Laud  d' Angers,  no.  83;  cf.  Cartidaire  de S.-Auhin,  ii.  112. 

In  1 145  he  is  at  Arques  and  Rouen  (Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  237,  239) ;  in  1146  at 
Rouen  {ibid.,  i.  242)  and  Courcy-sur-Dive  (charter  for  Cormery  given '  in  presentiam 
meam  apud  Curciacum  super  Divam  in  exercitu  meo  .  .  .  anno  Domini  miUesimo 
centesimo  quadragesimo  sexto  regnante  Ludovico  rege  Francorum  qui  tunc  crucem 
Domini  assumpserat ':  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Collection  Housseau,  v,  no.  1718); 
in  1 147  at  Argentan  {Livre  noir,  no.  100)  and  11  October  at  Rouen  (Round,  no. 
1405);  in  1 148  at  Fauguemon,  near  Lisieux  (Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  247);  27  March 
1149  at  Bee  {supra,  no.  2). 


144 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


bridge  over  the  Seine/"  and  after  Rouen  became  the  abode  of  the 
empress  in  1148^^  a  local  poet  did  not  hesitate  to  compare  to  im- 
perial Rome  the  ancient  and  noble  city  which  resembled  it  so 
closely  in  name  and  claimed  JuHus  Caesar  for  its  founder.''^  To 
Geoffrey  Rouen  owed  a  detailed  and  comprehensive  charter,  the 
earhest  of  the  city's  surviving  muniments/^  which  restored  to  the 
citizens  the  privileges  which  they  had  enjoyed  under  Henry  I, 
safeguarded  particularly  their  jurisdictional  and  fiscal  immuni- 
ties, confirmed  the  gild  organization,  as  represented  in  the  mer- 
chant and  cordwainers'  gilds,'*  and  guaranteed  the  rights  of  Rouen 
merchants  in  England  and  their  monopoly  of  the  commerce  of  the 
Seine  and  the  Irish  trade  of  Normandy.  Rouen  had  no  rival  in 
political  or  commercial  importance,  nor  can  much  trace  of  muni- 
cipal life  be  discovered  elsewhere  in  the  duchy  during  this  reign. 
Vemeuil  and  Nonancourt  on  the  southern  border  seem  to  have 

Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  239,  242,  368.  Cf .  A.  Deville,  Recherches  sur  Vancien  pont 
de  Rouen,  in  Precis  des  travaux  de  I'Academie  de  Rouen,  1831,  pp.  171-173. 

Supra,  note  34.  Most  of  Matilda's  Norman  charters  are  dated  at  Rouen  or 
Le  Pre:  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  142  f.,  nos.  6-13;  Round,  nos.  263,  679  f.,  683. 

'  Rothoma  nobilis,  urbs  antiqua,  potens,  speciosa, 

Gens  Normanna  sibi  te  preposuit  dominari; 

Imperialis  honorificentia  te  super  omat; 

Tu  Rome  similis  tam  nomine  quam  probitate, 

Rothoma,  si  mediam  removes,  et  Roma  vocaris. 

Viribus  acta  tuis  devicta  Britannia  servit; 

Et  tumor  Anglicus  et  Scotus  algidus  et  Galo  sevus 

Munia  protensis  manibus  tibi  debita  solvunt. 

Sub  duce  Gaufredo  cadit  hostis  et  arma  quiescunt, 

Nominis  ore  sui  Gaufredus  gaudia  fert  dux; 

Rothoma  letaris  sub  tanto  principe  felix.' 
The  remaining  nine  lines  are  a  eulogy  of  King  Roger  of  Sicily  (cf.  E.  H.  R.,  xxvi. 
435) :  MS.  Fr.  2623,  f.  114V,  printed  in  C.  Richard,  Notice  sur  Vancienne  Bibliotheque 
des  ^chevins  de  Rouen  (Rouen,  1845),  p.  37.  '  Imperialis  honorificentia  '  is,  of 
course,  an  allusion  to  the  coming  of  the  empress.  For  the  tradition  respecting 
Caesar,  see  Ordericus,  ii.  324,  where  its  size  and  prosperity  are  also  spoken  of. 

"  Cheruel,  Histoire  de  Rouen,  i.  241;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  109;  DeUsle-Berger, 
no.  14*.   Cf.  A.  Giry,  &tahlissements  de  Rouen,  i.  25-27. 

The  privileges  of  the  cordwainers  are  contained  in  a  special  charter:  Ordon- 
nances  des  Rots,  v.  416;  supra,  p.  134.  See  the  sknilar  charters  of  Henry  I,  Stephen, 
and  Henry  II  in  La  Roque,  iii.  149  (cf.  Round,  no.  107;  DeUsle-Berger,  no.  16*), 
where  the  charter  of  Stephen,  found  in  his  name  in  MS.  Lat.  9067,  f.  155,  is  wrongly 
attributed  to  William  the  Conqueror. 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


145 


continued  something  of  the  prosperity  which  they  owed  to  the 
fostering  care  of  Henry  I/^  but  it  is  perhaps  significant  that  Geof- 
frey's charters  make  no  mention  of  Caen  or  of  its  religious  estab- 
lishments, and  the  fortunes  of  both  Caen  and  Dieppe  waited  upon 
the  reestabhshment  of  close  relations  with  England  under  his 
son  J®  Charters  and  chroniclers  are  also  silent  in  Geoffrey's  reign 
respecting  another  phase  of  local  hfe,  namely  castle-building, 
which  had  been  a  traditional  practice  of  the  Angevin  counts  at 
home  and  played  a  prominent  part  in  the  Norman  policy  of 
Henry  I  and  Henry  11.^' 

On  his  visits  to  Normandy  Geoffrey  was  often  accompanied  by 
Angevin  barons,  such  as  the  seneschal  JosKn  of  Tours  and  his 
brother  Pippin,  Geoffrey  de  Cleers,  and  Payne  of  Clairvaux;  but 
he  had  also  an  important  Norman  following.  His  most  frequent 
attendants  were  the  seneschal  Reginald  of  Saint- Valery,  Robert 
de  Neufbourg,  Robert  de  Courcy,  WilUam  de  Vernon,  Guy  de 
Sable,  Alexander  and  Enjuger  de  Bohun,  Osbert  de  Cailli,  Richard 
de  la  Haie,  and  Enguerran  de  Vascoeuil.  The  attestations  of  the 
great  men  of  the  duchy,  such  as  the  counts  of  Meulan,  Roumare, 
and  Ponthieu,  appear  more  rarely,  while  the  subscriptions  of  the 
bishops  occur  only  in  occasional  documents  dated  at  Rouen,^* 
where  they  doubtless  attended  the  more  formal  meetings  of  the 
court,  although  they  played  no  regular  part  in  the  ducal  adminis- 
tration. The  appearance  of  Norman  barons  with  Geoffrey  in 
Anjou  "  Likewise  goes  to  show  that  there  was  no  mechanical 
separation  between  his  two  groups  of  followers;  but  the  regular 
ofl&cers  of  government  were  quite  distinct  in  Normandy  from 

See  Henry's  charter  to  Vemeuil  in  Ordonnances  des  Rots,  iv.  638;  and  the  docu- 
ments mentioning  these  towns  in  Le  Prevost,  Ettre,  ii.  476  f.,  488,  iii.  345,  347; 
Round,  nos.  282  f.,  287,  292  f.  For  Geoffrey's  reign  see  supra,  no.  6;  and  Ordericus, 
V.  132,  where  the  conventus  of  Vemeuil  in  1141  is  estimated  at  13,000  men. 

For  Dieppe  under  Geoffrey  see  below,  note  gy;  and  Round,  nos.  109,  170, 
1057  f.  The  growth  of  the  town  under  Henry  II  is  seen  in  the  various  grants  of 
houses  to  the  king's  officers  preserved  in  the  Coutumier  de  Dieppe  (Archives  of  the 
Seine-Inferieure,  G.  851):  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  115,  398,  709,  713,  719. 

"  For  the  Norman  castles  of  the  twelfth  century  see  Powicke,  The  Loss  of  Nor- 
mandy, ch.  vii. 

Livre  noir,  nos.  17,  19;  Round,  no.  126;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  8*;  infra,  no.  13. 
"  Supra,  no.  3;  Cariulaire  de  S.-Ymer,  p.  7;  Round,  no.  1058. 


146 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


those  in  his  other  possessions,  in  which  indeed  there  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  entire  unity  of  organization.^" 

It  was  in  this  nucleus  of  administrative  oflScers  that  the  breach 
of  continuity  created  by  time  and  civil  war  between  the  curia  of 
Henry  I  and  that  of  his  son-in-law  was  most  serious,  yet  it  is 
significant  that  the  new  recruits  came  from  Normandy  and  not 
from  Anjou.  The  change  was  most  marked  on  the  ecclesiastical 
side,  for  Henry's  justiciar,  John  of  Lisieux,  had  died  in  1141,  and 
Archbishop  Hugh  and  the  bishop  of  Coutances  were  the  only  pre- 
lates who  survived  from  Henry's  time.  The  bishops  had  taken 
Stephen's  part;  Philip  of  Bayeux,  the  most  experienced  of  them 
in  public  afifairs,  had  even  been  his  chancellor;  and  it  was  not 
to  be  expected  that  Geofifrey  would  turn  to  them  for  confidential 
advice  or  place  one  of  them  at  the  head  of  his  administration. 
Under  these  circumstances  the  suppression  of  the  justiciarship 
was  natural,  particularly  as  no  such  ofiice  existed  in  Anjou.  The 
principal  seneschal  of  Henry  I,  Robert  de  la  Haie,  was  also  dead,*^ 
and  his  son  Richard  had  held  Cherbourg  for  Stephen;  so  that 
this  dignity  fell  to  a  new  man,  Reginald  of  Saint- Valery,**  under 
whom  it  seems  to  have  gained  something  of  the  relatively  greater 
importance  which,  in  the  absence  of  a  justiciar,  it  had  come  to 
possess  in  Anjou.**  We  hear  very  little  of  the  other  seneschals, 
although  Robert  de  Courcy,  dapifer  imder  Henry  I,  has  the  same 

8"  What  has  been  said  above  of  the  chancellors  can  hardly  be  considered  an  ex- 
ception to  the  distinctness  of  Normandy.  For  Geoffrey's  other  dominions  note  the 
mention  of  Hugh  and  Geoffrey  de  Cleers  as  seneschals  besides  Joslin  of  Tours  in 
Marchegay,  Chroniques  des  eglises  d' Anjou,  p.  88  (cf.  the  documents  cited  in  DeUsle, 
Henri  II,  p.  387  f .) ;  and  also  the  special  officers  for  Maine  who  appear  in  a  charter 
given  at  Le  Mans  in  1146  {B.     C,  xxxvi.  433). 

Register  of  St.  Osmund,  i.  191  f.;  Calendar  of  Charter  Rolls,  v.  17,  no.  8.  For 
Philip's  biography  see  Bourrienne's  articles  in  Revue  catholique  de  Normandie,  xviii  fif. 

^  On  his  place  under  Henry  I,  see  supra,  p.  99.  He  disappears  after  Henry's 
time. 

^  John  of  Marmoutier,  ed.  Marchegay,  pp.  299-301 ,  ed.  Halphen  and  Poupardin, 
p.  229  f.  If,  as  John  says,  Richard  was  carried  off  by  pirates,  he  would  seem  to  have 
returned  to  Normandy,  where  he  holds  an  important  position  under  Geoffrey  and 
Henry  II.  There  may,  of  course,  have  been  two  barons  of  this  name;  the  seneschal, 
{infra,  note  88)  was  a  son-in-law  of  William  de  V^emon  (Stapleton,  i,  p.  cxlv). 

^  On  Reginald  see  DeUsle,  p.  421. 

On  the  seneschal  in  Anjou  see  Beautemps-Beaupre,  Coutumcs,  part  ii,  i,  chs. 
8,  lo;  and  cf.  Powicke,  E.  H,  R,,  xxi.  649;  Loss  of  Normandy,  p.  38. 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


H7 


title  in  one  of  Geoffrey's  charters;  ^®  and  while  I  have  not  found 
the  title  applied  to  him  before  Henry  II's  reign,  I  believe  that 
Robert  de  Neufbourg,  whose  signature  regularly  precedes  that  of 
Robert  de  Courcy  in  the  charters, must  also  have  been  dapifer 
under  Geoffrey  before  he  became  chief  seneschal  under  Henry  II. 
The  same  title  may  have  been  restored  to  Richard  de  la  Haie, 
who  uses  it  in 

Of  actual  meetings  of  the  curia  we  have  few  notices,  and  these 
are  concerned  entirely  with  its  judicial  decisions.  It  was  in 
Geoffrey's  court  that  Philip  of  Bayeux  estabhshed  his  rights  over 
Ducy  and  Louvieres  and  released  to  the  abbey  of  Savigny  his 
claim  to  land  in  Escures;  ^°  here  also  the  abbot  of  Fecamp  won 

Livre  noir,  no.  19.  Robert  de  Courcy,  who  was  in  Normandy  in  1 138,  when  he 
befriended  Geoffrey  (Ordericus,  v.  109),  in  1141  (Tardif,  Trcs  Ancien  Coutumier, 
p.  117;  cf.  Round,  Calendar,  no.  1198),  and  in  1145  {B.  &.  C,  xxi.  127,  131),  may 
not  be  identical  with  the  Robert  de  Courcy  who  as  dapifer  attests  charters  of  the 
empress  in  1142  (Round,  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  pp.  170,  183).  The  Courcy 
genealogy  needs  clearing  up ;  see  Tardif c. ;  Delisle,  p.  440. 

Livre  noir,  no.  39;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  170;  Neuslria  Pia,  p.  15;  infra, 
Chapter  VI,  note  95;  cf.  Delisle-Berger,  no.  8*;  and  the  charter  for  Bee,  supra, 
no.  2.  Robert  de  Neufbourg  was  one  of  the  early  partisans  of  Geoffrey:  Ordericus, 
V.  68.   On  his  position  under  Henry  II  see  Delisle,  pp.  445-447. 

See  his  charters  in  the  Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  4622,  5130;  and  cf.  H.  692. 
Stapleton,  i,  p.  xxxiv,  note,  says  he  was  dapifer  under  Geoffrey,  but  cites  no  evidence. 

'  Quas  in  curia  nobUis  memorie  Gaufridi  quondam  Normannie  ducis  per  indi- 
cium obtinuisti ':  Livre  noir,  no.  156. 

'  H.  Dei  gratia  Rothomagensi  archiepiscopo  totique  capitulo  Rothomagensis 
ecclesi§  G.  Andeg[avorum]  comes  salutem  et  dilectionem.  Notum  sit  vobis  atque 
omnibus  hominibus  tam  presentibus  quam  futuris  quod  Philipus  Baiocensis  episco- 
pus  in  pace  dimisit  et  quietam  clamavit  terram  de  Escuris  quam  ipse  adversum 
monachos  Saviniacenses  calumpniabatur  et  quam  monachi  in  tempore  regis  H.  et 
duorum  Baiocensium  episcoporum  predecessorum  eius  libere  et  quiete  tenuerant. 
Illam  autem  terram  dimisit  eis  quietam  et  liberam  ipse  Ph.  Baiocensis  episcopus  in 
presentia  GuUlehni  Cenomannensis  episcopi  et  mea  aput  Cenomannos,  presente 
Raginaldo  de  Sancto  Walerico  et  Guidone  de  Sabl[eio]  et  Gofferio  de  Brueria  atque 
plurimis  aUis.  Quare  vobis  mando  ac  vos  diligenter  deprecor  ut  si  Baiocensis  episco- 
pus vel  aUquis  alius  super  hoc  reclamare  aut  terram  calumpniari  presumeret,  mo- 
nachi prefati  vestram  protectionem  atque  adiutorium  inde  haberent.  Testibus 
Gaufredo  de  Claris  Vallibus  et  Guillelmo  de  Botevilla  et  magistro  Hugone  decano 
Sancti  Martini,  apud  Mosterol[ium].'  Original,  with  double  queue,  in  Archives 
Nationales,  L.  969;  cartulary  of  Savigny,  in  Archives  of  the  Manche,  no.  201; 
Round,  no.  809,  where  the  place  and  witnesses  are  omitted  and  Geoffrey's  title  is 
arbitrarily  altered  by  the  insertion  of  '  duke  of  the  Normans.'  For  the  date  see 
above,  note  26.  Another  account  of  the  transaction,  showing  that  Hugh  de  Cleers 


148 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


control  of  the  port  against  the  townsmen,*'  and  the  canons  of 
Rouen  established  their  privileges  in  the  forest  of  Aliermont.*^  In 
these  instances  the  duke  appears  to  have  been  himself  present; 
but  the  curia  at  Rouen,  which  effected  a  compromise  between  the 
abbot  of  Preaux  and  Enguerran  de  Vascoeuil,  was  composed  of 
indices,  baillivi,  and  proceres  under  the  presidency  of  Reginald  of 
Saint- Valery  as  dapifer  Normannie,^^  Possibly  Angevin  prece- 
dents may  have  done  something  to  develop  the  seneschal's  im- 
portance on  such  occasions,  but  as  an  itinerant  justice  he  is  in  no 
way  distinguished  from  his  associates.  As  under  Henry  I,*^  the 
judicial  authority  of  the  duke  seems  to  have  been  exercised  chiefly 
by  travelling  justices  who  acted  under  his  writs.  Such  ofl&cers  are 
constantly  found  in  the  inquests  held  on  behalf  of  the  bishop 
of  Bayeux,  specific  mention  being  made  of  Reginald  of  Saint- 
Valery,  Robert  de  Neufbourg,  Robert  de  Courcy,  William  de 
Vernon,  Richard  de  la  Haie,  Guy  de  Sable, En juger  de  Bohun,and 
Galeran,  count  of  Meulan.^^  Certain  of  these  reappear  in  the  same 
capacity  in  other  parts  of  Normandy :  Robert  de  Neufbourg  and 

was  also  among  those  present,  is  given  in  the  following  letter  of  William,  bishop  of 
Le  Mans:  '  H.  Dei  gratia  Rotomagensis  ecclesie  archiepiscopo  totique  eiusdem 
ecclesie  capitulo  G.  eadem  gratia  humilis  Cenomannensis  episcopus  per  bona  tem- 
poralia  immarcescibilis  vite  coronam  feliciter  attingere.  Discretioni  vestre  notum 
fieri  volumus  quod  PhUippus  Baiocensis  ecclesie  episcopus  terram  de  Escuris,  quam 
abbati  et  monachis  de  Savinneio  calumpniabatur  et  quam  predictus  abbas  et  mon- 
achi  solute  et  quiete  in  tempore  duorum  episcoporum  predecessorum  suorum  et 
Henrici  regis  tenuerant,  in  presentia  nostra  et  domini  Gofredi  Normannorum 
ducis  et  Andegavorum  comitis  et  Guidonis  de  Sablon  et  Raginaldi  de  Sancto 
Galerico  et  Goferii  de  Brueria  et  Hugonis  de  Cleriis  et  aliorum  multorum  in  pace 
dimisit.  Hoc  ideo  vobis  scripsunus  quod  si  prefatus  episcopus  vel  aliqms  alius 
erga  ecclesiam  Savinneii  insurrexerit,  prescripte  ecclesie,  sicut  decet  sanctos,  ius 
suum  defendatis.'  Original  in  MS.  Lat.  9215,  Savigny,  no.  i;  cartulary,  no.  202; 
omitted  by  L.  Celier,  in  his  Catalogue  des  ades  des  eveques  du  Mans  (Paris,  1910); 
cf.  Auvry,  Histoire  de  la  congregation  de  Savigny,  iii.  44. 

'1  '  Sicut  eum  disrationavit  in  curia  patris  mei  et  postea  in  curia  mea'  :  charter 
of  Henry  II,  Delisle-Berger,  no.  120;  Round,  no.  132. 

^  Valin,  p.  266;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  39*;  cf.  supra,  p.  134. 

Pleas  '  ante  ducem  Normannorum  '  are  mentioned  in  the  charter  to  Rouen 
(Delisle-Berger,  no.  14*) .  In  the  eulogy  of  Geoffrey  by  fitienne  de  Rouen  his  justice 
is  especially  praised:  Chroniques  des  comtcs  d'Anjou,  ed.  Marchegay,  p.  313;  Hew- 
lett, Chronicles  of  Stephen,  ii.  772. 

^  Valin,  p.  265.  =5  Supra,  Chapter  III. 

96  Li^e  noir,  nos.  17,  19,  24,  25,  39,  43,  44,  89,  90. 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


149 


William  de  Vernon  at  Arques  and  Dieppe;  Guy  de  Sable,  this 
time  with  WilUam  Lovel,  at  Verneuil  and  Nonan court.  In  the 
Cotentin  we  read  of  an  inquest  held  at  the  duke's  assize  {in 
assisia  mea)  at  Valognes;  no  justice  is  mentioned,  but  four  who 
are  otherwise  known  to  have  exercised  such  functions  witness  the 
charter  of  Geoffrey  which  declares  the  result. Evidently  the 
system  extended  throughout  the  duchy;  evidently  also  the  jus- 
tices were  chosen  from  the  principal  lay  members  of  the  curia, 
without  recourse  to  the  clergy. 

The  problem  of  chief  interest  in  connection  with  Geoffrey's 
justices  is  their  administration  of  the  sworn  inquest  in  the  deter- 
mination of  disputes  concerning  land,  a  question  which  need  not 
here  be  treated  at  length,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  discuss  it 
with  some  fullness  later. The  evidence  comes  for  the  most  part 
from  the  Livre  noir  of  Bayeux  and  is  connected  with  the  active 
efforts  of  the  bishop,  PhiHp  d'Harcourt,  for  the  recovery  of  his 
property  in  the  years  immediately  following  the  Angevin  con- 
quest. For  his  benefit  Geoffrey  provided  for  a  general  recognition 
of  the  demesne,  fiefs,  and  other  rights  of  the  see,  as  well  as  for  the 
determination  by  inquest  of  neighbors  of  disputes  between  the 
bishop  and  any  of  his  tenants,  and  he  added  special  writs  to 
individual  justices  with  reference  to  particular  estates  and  feudal 
holdings.  The  facts  were  determined  by  the  oath  of  lawful  men  of 
the  vicinage,  and  each  of  the  justices  in  charge  made  a  written 
return  to  the  duke,  four  such  returns  having  survived  as  detailed 
evidence  of  the  procedure  employed.  The  sworn  recognition  was 
also  used  under  Geoffrey  to  determine  the  rights  of  the  bishop  of 
Coutances  over  Tourlaville  and  those  of  the  chapter  of  Rouen 
in  the  forest  of  Aliermont;  '"^  and  its  diffusion  is  further  shown  by 

E.  H.  R.,  xxvii.  438,  note  97;  Lot,  S.-Wafidrille,  no.  1 19.  Reginald  of  Saint- 
Valery  was  also  concerned  with  Dieppe,  where  he  held  the  revenues  of  the  port: 
Round,  nos.  1057  f. 

"  Supra,  no.  6.  In  the  region  of  Argentan  Fulk  d'Aunou  and  Robert  de  Neuville 
seem  to  have  been  justices:  Delisle,  Carlulaire  normand,  no.  4,  p.  273. 

"  VVUliam  de  Vernon,  Enjuger  de  Bohun,  Robert  de  Neufbourg,  and  Robert  de 
Courcy:  infra,  Chapter  VT,  note  95. 

"0  Infra,  Chapter  VI. 

Infra,  Chapter  VI,  note  95. 

Delisle-Berger,  no.  39*.  On  the  attribution  to  Geoffrey  see  above,  p.  134. 


15©  NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 

the  practice  of  submitting  the  question  of  a  champion's  profes- 
sionalism to  the  oath  of  ten  citizens  of  Rouen  selected  by  the 
duke's  justice,'"^  and  by  a  case  in  the  baronial  court  of  the  count 
of  Meulan  where  the  parties  put  themselves  on  the  verdict  of 
eight  lawful  knights. The  sworn  inquest  was  nothing  new  in 
Normandy,  having  been  prescribed  by  Henry  I  in  1 133  to  deter- 
mine the  possessions  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux/"^  and  in  employ- 
ing it  again  for  the  bishop's  benefit  Geofifrey  expressly  states  that 
he  is  following  in  Henry's  footsteps. It  was  obviously  a  Nor- 
man, not  an  Angevin  institution.  The  e\'idence  for  its  use  under 
Geoffrey,  however,  is  much  more  abimdant  than  under  the  pre- 
vious Norman  dukes,  and  two  writs  of  his  directing  his  justices  to 
cause  lands  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux  to  be  recognized  secundum 
assisiam  meant  led  B  runner  to  conclude  that  the  duke,  whom  he 
supposed  to  be  Henry  II,  was  here  citing  a  general  ordinance 
which  introduced  this  procedure  as  a  regular  method  of  trial  in 
cases  concerning  land.  No  other  mention  of  such  an  assize  has 
been  found  in  Geoffrey's  reign,  and  it  is  possible  to  interpret  the 
phrase  in  other  ways;  but  the  reappearance  of  these  words  in  the 
early  years  of  Henry  II,  along  with  clear  evidence  of  the  use 
of  the  recognition  as  a  remedy  regularly  open  to  ordinary  hti- 
gants,  adds  weight  to  Brunner's  conclusion.  On  the  whole,  it 
seems  probable  that  the  regularization  and  extension  of  this 
form  of  procedure,  which  are  well  attested  by  11 59,  had  already 
begun  under  Geoffrey  and  had  perhaps  been  formulated  by  him 
in  some  specific  docimient  now  lost.^"^ 

Next  to  the  justices,  who  may  be  considered  as  both  central  and 
local  ofl&cers,  came  the  vicomtes,  who  had  since  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury been  the  principal  agents  of  local  administration,  charged 
with  the  general  oversight  of  the  vicomte,  and  particularly  with  the 

i""  Delisle-Berger,  no.  14*. 

1**  Valin,  pp.  201,  264;  Chapter  Yl,  note  128. 

Supra,  Chapter  I,  p.  15. 
106  '  Vestigiis  regis  Henrici  inherentes  qui  hoc  idem  iiiramento  antiquonim  homi- 
num  fecerat  recognosci.  .  .  .  luramentnm  quod  rex  Henricus  fieri  fecerat  ratum 
esse  volentes,  iiuamento  eorundem  qui  tempore  regis  Henrici  iuraverunt  et  aliorum 
recognosci  fecimus  iura,  possessiones,  consuetudines,  libertates  quas  ecclesia  Baio- 
censis  tempore  Odonis  episcopi  habuerat  et  habere  debebat.'  Livre  noir,  no.  39. 
See  the  discussion  of  this  evidence  in  Chapter  VI. 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


collection  of  the  duke's  revenues  and  the  payment  of  the  farm  at 
which  their  district  was  let.^"*  These  fiscal  arrangements,  which 
also  covered  the  parallel  but  inferior  jurisdiction  of  the  prevots, 
show  remarkable  fixity  from  the  time  of  WiUiam  the  Conqueror 
to  that  of  Henry  11,^°^  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  Geoffrey 
sought  to  reestablish  and  maintain  them,  especially  since  his 
resources  had  been  diminished  by  the  extensive  grants  from  the 
ducal  demesne  which  he  had  been  obliged  to  make  as  the  price  of 
the  barons'  support.""  He  is  careful  that  the  bishop  of  Evreux 
shall  have  his  tenths  from  the  farm  of  Vemeuil  and  Nonan- 
court,!"  the  nuns  of  Saint-Amand  their  tithes  in  the  forests  of 
Eaui  and  Aliermont,"^  the  monks  of  Saint-Wandrille  their  ancient 
rights  in  his  rents  at  Arques  and  Dieppe,  in  the  proceeds  of  the 
fair  at  Caen,  and  in  the  toU  of  Rouen,  Exmes,  Falaise,  and  Argen- 
tan."^  We  have  the  actual  writ  ordering  the  vicomte  of  Rouen  to 
pay  the  lepers  of  the  city  the  forty  shillings  monthly  which  King 
Henry  had  given  them,"*  and  the  charter  to  the  citizens  of  Rouen 
shows  the  duke's  ofl&cers  collecting  the  toUs  and  customs  and 
wine-dues  which  are  mentioned  in  the  documents  of  his  prede- 
cessors."^ While,  however,  the  vicomtes  and  prevots  continued  to 
account  to  the  Exchequer  '  for  the  issues  of  their  more  ancient 
jurisdictions,'  the  Angevin  dukes  superimposed  upon  the  local 
government  of  Normandy  the  new  area  of  the  hailliage}'^^  It  is  not 
hkely  that  under  Geoffrey  this  new  unit  acquired  any  such  im- 
portance as  it  possesses  in  the  military  returns  of  1172;  yet  the 

Stapleton,  i,  pp.  xxxiv-jcxxvi,  bd;  Delisle,  in  B.  E.  C,  x.  264  f.;  id.,  Henri  II, 
pp.  212-218;  sH/>ra,  p.  46  f. 

^"^  Supra,  pp.  42-44,  105  f.  Ill  Supra,  no.  6. 

"0  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  267.  No.  7. 

Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  nos.  78,  119.  Another  example  of  the  continuity  of  the 
fiscal  system  is  seen  in  the  empress's  grant  to  Saint- Andre-en-Gouff em  (1151-1154) 
of  465.  ()d.,  which  had  been  paid  annually  to  the  vicomte  of  Argentan  for  the  gravaria 
of  Montgaroult:  Round,  no.  593;  Delisle,  p.  142,  no.  10. 

Supra,  no.  12.  Cf.  the  charters  of  the  empress  and  Henry  for  Le  Grand- 
Beaulieu:  Delisle,  p.  126;  Dehsle-Berger,  nos.  11*,  45*. 

Round,  no.  109.  On  the  dues  collected  at  Rouen  under  the  Norman  dukes 
see  Charles  de  Beaurepaire,  La  Vicomte  de  I'Eatt  de  Rouen  (fivreux,  1856),  pp.  2, 18- 
20,  40-52. 

Stapleton,  i,  p.  xxxiii  f.;  B.  £.  C,  x.  259  f.;  Powicke,  E.  H.  R.,  xxii.  22  f.; 
and,  more  fully,  in  his  Loss  of  Normandy,  pp.  71-73,  103-116, 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


name  hailia,  probably  in  the  more  general  sense  of  an  officer's  dis- 
trict, occurs  first  in  his  reign/"  and  the  baillivi  make  their  appear- 
ance in  his  charters,  where,  however,  the  term,  like  the  more 
common  ministri,  may  have  been  applied  collectively  to  all  below 
the  rank  of  -uicomte}^^  We  meet  also  with  the  duke's  constable  at 
Cherbourg,"^  the  wardens  of  his  forest  of  Argentan,!^"  his  gold- 
smith at  Arques,^2i  qt^^  i^js  moneyer  at  VemeuU  or  Nonancourt,^^^ 
as  well  as  a  group  of  servientes  —  a  loose  term  which  in  one  in- 
stance describes  those  who  exercise  the  duke's  authority  on  the 
lands  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux,'-^  and  in  another  denotes  the  Ser- 
jeants of  Rouen  whose  offices  the  charter  of  the  city  promises  to 
restore. One  hereditary  serjeanty  of  this  sort,  that  of  Henry  the 
marshal  in  Rouen  and  its  banlieue,  is  known  in  its  curious  pri\a- 
leges  from  the  document,  preserved  in  a  corrupt  form,  by  which 
Geoffrey  conferred  it: 

(13)  G.  dux  Normenn[orum  et]  comes  Andeg[avorum]  .  .  archiepiscopo 
Rothomagensi  et  omnibus  episcopis  Normemiie  et  comitibus^^  et  iusti- 
ciis  suis  salutem.    Noveritis  quod  ego  dedi  et  concessi  Hemico  le  Mareschal 

Livre  noir,  no.  24.  Cf.  no.  40,  issued  shortly  after  Geoffrey's  death;  and 
Stapleton,  i,  p.  xxxiv. 

Livre  noir,  no.  16;  Neustria  Pia,  p.  15;  Valin,  p.  265;  supra,  nos.  5,  10,  11. 
Cf.  Delisle,  pp.  207,  219. 

Delisle,  pp.  142  f.,  409,  513,  no.  84*,  facsimile,  pi.  i.  This  is  a  writ  of  the  em- 
press, probably  issued  between  1151  and  1154,  but  the  constable  in  question,  Osbert 
de  la  Heuse,  was  a  companion  of  Geoffrey  (John  of  Marmoutier,  ed.  Halphen  and 
Poupardin,  p.  174),  and  had  doubtless  been  placed  by  him  in  charge  of  Cherbourg. 
^'^  Delisle,  Cartiilaire  normand,  no.  4. 

Charter  of  Henry  II  granting  '  Waltero  cambiatori  aurifabro  et  heredibus  suis 
totam  terram  Roberti  cambiatoris  patris  sui  sitam  apud  Archas  quietam  et  liberam 
et  totum  cambium  et  totam  aurifabricatiu-am  toscius  castellarie  Archanun  et  tocius 
Deppe  .  .  .  preterea  .  .  .  omnes  consuetudines  et  quittancias  et  Ubertates  quas 
pater  meus  G.  comes  Andegavorum  dedit  et  concessit  Roberto  patri  suo  et  carta  con- 
firmavit.'  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  G.  851,  f.  5Sv.;  MS.  Lat.  9209,  Rouen, 
no.  2;  Delisle,  Henri  II,  no.  527;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  719. 
^  Supra,  no.  6,  reading  '  Gisleberto  nummario.' 

^  Livre  noir,  no.  16.  The  general  meaning  is  also  found  in  nos.  3  and  9,  supra. 
Delisle-Berger,  no.  14*,  where  the  '  proprium  marescaUum  civitatis  '  is  also 
mentioned. 

Archives  Nationales,  JJ.  72,  no.  191,  based  on  a  vidimus  of  Philip  V  in  1318. 
The  charter  is  probably  anterior  to  1147,  as  it  is  witnessed  by  the  count  of  Meulan. 
For  other  serjeanties  connected  with  Rouen  under  Henry- 1  and  Henry  II  see  Chap- 
ter III,  notes  156-158,  and  Chapter  V,  notes  145-147. 

MS,  communihus. 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


153 


servient!  meo  sergenteriam  de  bagnileuca  Rothomagensi  sicut  se  proportat 
de  feodo  de  Pratellis  et  de  feodo  de  Cailliaco,  et  dedi  eidem  Henrico  et  suis 
heredibus  sergenteriam  de  Cailliaco  sicut  se  proportat  in  longum  et  in  latum 
et  sicut  extendit  de  feodo  de  Cailliaco  et  de  feudo  de  Pratellis  et  de  feodo  de 
Feritate  usque  ad  partes  de  Gournayo,  et  omnia  alia  ad  placitum  spate  per- 
tinencia,  tenenda  et  habenda  dicto  Henrico  le  Mareschal  et  suis  heredibus 
bene  et  in  pace  servientium  {sic)  faciendo.  Et  volo  et  concedo  quod  dictus 
Henricus  le  Mareschal  et  eius  heredes  habeant  omnes  robas  tallatas  omnia- 
que  superlectillia  et  omnia  vasa  nisi  fuerint  argentea  et  aurata,  et  carnes  ba- 
conum  nisi  bacones  fuerint  integri,  et  dolium  nisi  plenum  sit  vini,  videlicet 
eorum  et  earum  que  membra  sua  forefacient,  et  de  domibus  que  cremabuntur 
forefactura  que  eidem  Henricus  et  eius  heredes  habeant  tantum  quantvma 
poterunt  sursum  percutere  de  moura  spate  sue  si  eques  fuerint  ignem  def- 
fendendo.  Volo  etiam  et  concedo  quod  eidem  Henricus  et  eius  heredes 
habeant  suum  hardere  et  suum  edificare  in  foresta  mea  de  Tisone  et  pastu- 
ragia  ab  omnibus  libera  et  quieta.  Et  quia  volo  quod  omnia  et  singula 
predicta  dicto  Henrico  et  eius  heredibus  rata  et  stabiha  in  perpetuum  tene- 
antur,  hanc  presentem  cartam  munimine  sigUli  mei  confirmavi. 

Testibus  Hugone  Rothomagensi  archiepiscopo,  Ern[ulfo]  Luxoviensi 
episcopo,  PhiHppo  Baiocenso  episcopo,  Galerano  comite  Mellendi,  Reginald© 
de  Sancto  Walerico,  Rogero  de  Claris  vallis  {sic),  Gaufredo  de  Cleres,  apud 
Rothomagum. 

Respecting  Geoffrey's  policy  toward  the  Norman  church,  there 
is  little  to  add  to  what  Bohmer  has  said  on  the  subject. Qn 
three  occasions  during  his  reign  the  effort  was  made  to  exercise 
freedom  of  election  in  place  of  the  practice  of  ducal  appointment 
which  had  prevailed  under  Henry  I  and  even  under  Stephen;  but 
while  in  each  case  Geoffrey  ended  by  accepting  the  candidate  so 
chosen,  he  asserted  his  authority  with  a  vigor  which  left  his  real 
control  undiminished.  He  held  the  property  of  the  see  against 
Amulf  of  Lisieux  for  two  years  and  three  months,  and  restored  it 
then  only  after  the  exaction  of  a  heavy  payment ;  Gerard  of  Seez, 
elected  under  questionable  circumstances  about  the  beginning  of 
1 144,  suffered  at  the  hands  of  Geoffrey's  followers  acts  of  violence 
which  were  subsequently  compared  to  the  murder  of  Becket,^^' 
and  was  not  reconciled  to  the  duke  until  Easter  1147;  the  abbot 
whom  monks  and  pope  set  over  the  monastery  of  Mont-Sarnt- 
Michel  was  compelled  to  purchase  his  peace  with  the  duke  at  a 

I.  e.,  the  blade:  Old  French  moure,  meure  (Godefroy). 

Kirche  und  Slaat  in  England  und  in  der  Normandie,  pp.  310-325. 

Giraldus  Cambrensis,  viii.  301. 


154  NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 

price  which  left  his  house  under  a  heavy  burden  of  debt.""  Con- 
tests such  as  these,  as  well  as  the  long  adherence  of  the  prelates  to 
Stephen's  cause,  make  it  plain  why  the  bishops  play  so  little  part 
in  the  secular  affairs  of  the  duchy  during  Geoffrey's  reign,  the 
only  notable  exception  being  the  use  of  Amulf  of  Lisieux  as  inter- 
mediary in  the  difficulties  of  1150  with  Louis  VII. Apart,  how- 
ever, from  the  energetic  assertion  of  his  claims  during  vacancies, 
when  he  doubtless  did  much  to  earn  Saint  Bernard's  characteriza- 
tion of  malleus  bonorum,  oppressor  pads  et  libertatis  ecclesie,^^- 
Geoffrey  can  hardly  be  accused  of  injustice  in  his  dealings  with 
the  Norman  church.  If  the  case  of  Bayeux  may  be  taken  as  an 
example,  we  find  him  placing  the  full  machinery  of  judicial  ad- 
ministration at  the  bishop's  disposal  for  the  recovery  of  rights  and 
property  which  had  been  lost  during  the  anarchy  and  earUer,!^' 
and  it  is  significant,  in  contrast  with  conditions  in  Anjou,^^*  that 
no  complaints  of  Geoffrey's  exactions  in  Normandy  meet  us  at  the 
outset  of  the  succeeding  reign.  It  was  in  accord  with  the  ten- 
dencies of  the  age  that  the  Norman  church  should  in  Geoffrey's 
time  be  drawn  into  closer  relations  with  Rome  and  with  the  rest 
of  northern  France,  but  it  is  noteworthy  that  he  did  not  permit 
Eugene  III  or  his  legates  to  enter  his  dominions;  and,  with  due 
allowance  for  the  inevitable  growth  of  curial  influence  and  of 
solidarity  within  the  church  in  this  period,  it  would  seem  that  the 
ducal  prerogative  was  handed  on  vmimpaired  to  his  successor. 

"°  Annals  of  Mont-Saint-Michel,  in  Labbe,  Nova  BiUiotheca  (1657),  i.  352. 

"1  H.  F.,  XV.  521;  Oeuvres  de  Suger,  ed.  Lecoy  de  la  Marche,  p.  267. 

Epistolae,  no.  348,  in  Migne,  cbcxxii.  553.  So  Peter  of  Cluny  says:  '  totius 
ecclesie  Dei  que  in  partibus  illis  est  hostis  comes  Andegavorum  audiatur.'  H.  F., 
XV.  637. 

^  Infra,  pp.  204-212;  Revtie  calholique  de  Normandie,  xix.  167-172,  266-272, 
2gs-3oi.  Observe  also  the  enforcement  of  the  fine  of  £9  for  breach  of  the  bishop's 
peace:  supra,  no.  6. 

See  the  charters  of  Henry  II  for  Saint-Florent  and  Fontevrault,  in  Delisle- 
Berger,  nos.  22*,  27*,  30*. 

'  Certus  erat  se  Romanam  ecclesiam  offendisse,  quod  nec  domnum  papam  nec 
aliquem  legatum  passus  erat  ingredi  terram  suam: '  John  of  Salisbury,  Hisloria 
Pontificalis,  in  M.  G.  H.,  Scriptores,  xx.  531.  Bohmer  overlooks  this  passage.  The 
mission  of  the  legates  Alberic  and  Imams,  upon  which  he  bases  his  statement  that 
legatine  authority  was  freely  exercised  in  Normandy,  belongs  to  1144  and  hence 
can  hardly  be  considered  typical.  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  80;  Livre  noir,  no.  58; 
H.  F.,  XV.  696  f. 


GEOFFREY  PLANTAGENET 


So  far  as  this  investigation  furnishes  an  answer  to  the  question 
with  which  we  started,  it  is  that  in  his  administration  of  Nor- 
mandy Geoffrey  continued  the  institutions  and  the  policy  of 
Henry  I.  The  judicial  and  fiscal  system  and  the  organs  of  local 
government  remain  as  before,  with  no  trace  of  Angevin  admix- 
ture. The  personnel  of  the  curia  undergoes  some  change,  and  the 
seneschal  perhaps  acquires  somewhat  greater  importance;  but 
if  the  justiciar  disappears,  it  is  only  to  reemerge  under  Henry  II, 
and  the  department  which  stands  in  the  most  intimate  relation 
to  the  new  ruler,  the  chancery,  is  Normanized  even  to  its  smallest 
phrases.  Where,  as  in  the  case  of  the  sworn  inquest,  some  de- 
velopment appears  probable,  it  roots  in  the  practice  of  Henry  I's 
reign  and  follows  no  discoverable  Angevin  precedents,  nor  do  we 
find  in  Normandy  that  direct  and  personal  rule  which  is  so  char- 
acteristic of  the  government  of  the  counts  of  Anjou.  All  the  evi- 
dence goes  to  show  that  Geoffrey  observed  for  himself  the  policy , 
which  at  the  close  of  his  Ufe  he  laid  down  for  his  son,  that  of  avoid- 
ing the  transfer  of  customs  or  institutions  from  one  part  of  his 
dominions  to  another.  How  far  this  advice  was  followed  by 
Henry  II  is  a  problem  for  the  next  chapter. 

I'*  '  Terre  vero  sue  et  genti  spiritu  presago  in  posterum  previdens,  Henrico  heredi 
suo  interdixit  ne  Normannie  vel  Anglie  consuetudines  in  consulatus  sui  terram,  vel 
e  converse,  varie  vicissitudinis  alternatione  permutaret: '  John  of  Marmoutier, 
ed.  Marchegay,  p.  292;  ed.  Halphen  and  Poupardin,  p.  224. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  NORMANDY  UNDER  HENRY  IP 

In  the  great  Plantagenet  empire  of  the  twelfth  century  Nor- 
mandy held  the  central  place,  mediating  historically,  as  well  as 
geographically,  between  the  England  which  it  had  conquered  a 
century  earher  and  the  Angevin  and  Aquitanian  lands  which 
shared  its  Frankish  traditions  and  were  beginning  to  feel  with  it 
the  nascent  centripetal  power  of  the  French  monarchy .  The 
beginnings  of  this  empire  were  the  result  of  Norman  initiative, 
and  upon  Normandy  fell  the  brunt  of  the  attacks  under  which  it 
collapsed.  Yet  Normandy,  though  central,  was  not  dominant. 
It  was  bound  to  its  neighbors,  not  merely  by  a  personal  union,  but 
by  a  common  imperial  policy,  by  certain  elements  of  a  common 
administration,  and  by  constant  communication  and  interchange 
of  officials ;  and  it  took  its  place  by  their  side  as  a  member  of  the 
strongest  and  most  remarkable  state  of  its  time.  Be  our  interest 
mihtary  or  economic,  ecclesiastical  or  constitutional,  we  cannot 
hope  to  understand  any  part  of  this  realm  without  constant  refer- 
ence to  the  other  parts  and  to  the  whole.  What  is  true  of  the 
several  countries  is  true  of  their  sovereign.  Henry  II  has  too  often 
been  viewed  merely  as  an  English  king,  yet  he  was  bom  and  edu- 
cated on  the  Continent,  began  to  rule  on  the  Continent,  and  spent 
a  large  part  of  his  later  Hfe  in  his  Continental  dominions.  He  was, 
it  is  true,  not  a  foreigner,  as  was  William  the  Conqueror,  for 
England  had  a  share  in  forming  him  which  it  had  not  in  the  mak- 
ing of  his  great-grandfather;  yet  he  is  not,  even  retrospectively, 
a  national  figure,  either  English  or  French.  In  a  later  age  he 
would  have  been  called  international,  or  even  cosmopoUtan,  for 
he  had  wide-ranging  tastes,  and  knew  the  languages  of  the  world 
from  France  to  Syria.^ 

1  Revised  and  expanded  from  ^.  E.  R.,  xx.  24-42,  277-291  (1914-1915).  A  sum- 
mary was  read  before  the  International  Congress  of  Historical  Studies  at  London  in 
April  1913. 

*  '  Linguarum  omnium  que  sunt  a  marl  Gallico  usque  ad  lordanem  habens 

156 


HENRY  II 


157 


It  is  natural  that  Henry's  reign  should  have  been  most  thor- 
oughly studied  in  the  land  where  his  descendants  still  rule,  but  it 
is  significant  of  his  wider  influence  that  the  Continental  relations 
of  his  legal  reforms  were  first  clearly  seen  by  a  German  jurist,  and 
that  the  greatest  French  scholar  of  our  time  should  have  begun 
his  long  life  of  labor  with  a  study  of  Henry's  financial  adminis- 
tration and  closed  it  by  dedicating  to  the  Continental  documents 
of  his  reign  a  masterly  volume  of  the  Charles  et  dipldmes  relatijs  a 
Vhistoire  de  France.  Where  Brunner  and  DeHsle  are  masters,  one 
must  perforce  follow;  yet  this  period  of  Norman  history  is  not  ex- 
hausted, as  Powicke  has  recently  shown  us,  and  one  may  still  seek 
to  contribute  a  bit  of  new  evidence  or  a  new  suggestion  to  the 
understanding  of  what  will  always  be  a  reign  of  uncommon  inter- 
est. In  presenting  the  results  of  any  such  study  much  depends  on 
the  point  of  view.  When  the  institutions  of  Normandy  approach 
those  of  its  Continental  neighbors,  they  will  impress  the  English 
student  more  than  they  impress  the  French,  while  other  elements 
which  seem  famiKar  and  hence  commonplace  to  an  EngUsh  writer 
become  highly  significant  when  seen  against  a  Continental  back- 
ground. The  point  of  view  in  this  chapter  is  English  in  the  sense 
that  it  examines  the  government  of  Normandy  under  Henry  II 
particularly  for  light  which  may  be  thrown  upon  the  government 
of  England  in  the  same  period;  and,  while  it  is  based  upon  an  inde- 
pendent exploration  of  the  available  evidence,  it  will  pass  lightly 
over  institutions  which,  like  the  chancery,  are  already  well  under- 
stood, or  which,  like  the  fiscal  system,  are  interesting  chiefly  by 
way  of  contrast  to  Continental  conditions.^  The  central  subject 
must  be  the  courts  of  law. 

The  great  obstacle  to  any  careful  study  of  Normandy  in  this 
period  is  the  paucity  of  original  information,  especially  as  con- 

scientiam,  Latina  tantum  utens  et  Gallica,'  says  Walter  Map,  De  Nugis  Curialium, 
ed.  M.  R.  James,  p.  237  (ed.  T.  Wright,  p.  227). 

'  For  the  fiscal  system  Delisle's  study,  Des  revenus  publics  en  Normandie  au  XII' 
Steele,  B.  C,  x,  xi,  xiii,  is  still  fundamental.  For  legal  matters  L.  Valin,  Le  due  de 
Normandie  et  sa  cour,  is  useful,  though  inadequate  in  its  use  of  materials  and  at 
times  too  juristic.  F.  M.  Fowicke's  Loss  of  Normandy,  supplemented  at  certain 
points  by  his  articles  in  E.  H.  R.,  xxi.  635-649,  xxii.  15-42,  gives  the  best  survey  of 
the  Angevin  period  but  treats  constitutional  matters  less  fully  than  other  aspects 
of  the  subject. 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


trasted  with  the  wealth  of  record  in  contemporary  England.  For 
Henry's  reign  the  only  Norman  chronicle  is  that  of  Robert  of 
Torigni,*  pieced  out  by  occasional  local  annals  and  by  the  casual 
references  of  English  writers  to  Norman  affairs,  and  there  is  little 
to  add  in  the  form  of  letters  ^  or  other  hterary  remains.  Over 
against  the  splendid  series  of  the  Pipe  Rolls,  unbroken  after  1155, 
Normandy  can  show  only  the  Exchequer  RoU  of  1180  and  two 
fragments  of  1184.®  There  is  no  Dialogm  on  the  Excheqtier  and 
no  Glanvill,  and  the  earliest  customal  is  not  earlier  than  11 99.'' 
Henry's  charters  are  fairly  numerous,  in  originals,  in  cartulary 
copies,  or  in  the  vidimus  of  French  kings,  and  an  admirable  basis 
for  their  study  at  last  exists  in  Leopold  Delisle's  Introduction,^ 
now  being  followed  by  the  pubhcation  of  the  full  texts ;  yet  of 
those  here  collected  the  four  hundred  or  more  which  relate  to 
Normandy  are  an  insignificant  part  of  the  thousands  which  once 
existed  and  from  which  it  would  have  been  possible  to  recon- 
struct the  whole  course  of  administrative  and  judicial  procedure 
in  the  Norman  state.  The  charters  of  bishops  and  barons  and 
lesser  persons  are  more  numerous  and  ofifer  much  to  reward  the 
investigator  of  local  and  family  history  and  of  legal  and  economic 
relations,  but  they  too  often  tell  us  what  we  least  want  to  know, 
and  the  result  of  prolonged  explorations  is  in  many  respects 
disappointing. 

Equally  fatal  is  the  loss  of  Henry's  Norman  legislation.  At 
best,  as  Maitland  has  reminded  us,^  his  law-making  was  done  in 

*  Cited  from  Delisle's  edition  (Societe  de  I'Histoire  de  Xonnandie,  Rouen, 
1872-1873) ;  Hewlett's  reprint  in  the  RoUs  Series  {Chronicles  0} Stephen,  iv)  is  much 
less  useful. 

^  The  letters  of  Amulf  of  Lisieux,  for  example,  are  disappointing. 

*  Cited  from  the  edition  of  Thomas  Stapleton  (London,  1840-1844);  the  second 
fragment  of  1184  from  DeUsle's  Henri  II,  pp.  334-344.  That  the  Exchequer  had 
other  types  of  rolls  appears  from  the  notice  of  1186  printed  by  Delisle,  Memoires 
de  VAcademie  des  Inscriptions,  xxiv,  part  2,  p.  353;  and  by  VaUn,  p.  278. 

'  E.-J.  Tardif,  Le  Tres  Ancien  CoiUumier,  in  his  Coutumiers  de  Normandie,  i 
(Rouen,  1881);  cf.  Viollet,  in  Eistoire  litteraire  de  la  France,  xxxiii.  43-62. 

*  Recueil  des  odes  de  Henri  II  roi  d'  Anglelerre  et  dtic  de  Normandie  concernant  les 
provinces fran^aises  et  les  affaires  de  France,  Introduction,  with  a  fascicle  of  facsimiles, 
Paris,  1909;  tome  i,  re\'ised  and  published  by  £Ue  Berger,  Paris,  1916;  tome  ii 
in  press.   Cf.  my  review,  E.  H.  R.,  October  191 7. 

'  History  of  English  Law,  i,  136.  On  the  legislation  of  the  dukes  of  Normandy 


HENRY  II 


159 


an  informal  fashion  and  has  left  few  monuments,  even  in  England, 
and  for  Normandy  the  only  formal  ordinances  that  have  been 
preserved  are  the  levy  of  the  Palestine  tax  in  1166  and  the  Con- 
tinental prototypes  of  the  Assize  of  Arms  and  the  regulations  con- 
cerning the  Saladin  tithe. ^°  Here  again  time  has  dealt  unkindly 
with  records  which  are  known  to  have  existed.  The  Bee  annalist 
tells  of  the  Christmas  court  at  Falaise  in  1 1 59,  whose  acts  he  evi- 
dently had  before  him  in  writing  his  provokingly  meager  sum- 
mary,!'  and  three  years  later  we  hear  of  a  Lenten  assembly  at 
Rouen  which  seems  to  have  had  legislative  importance.  There 
were  probably,  as  we  shall  see,  one  or  more  specific  assizes  estab- 
Ushing  the  use  of  the  recognition,  and  tenure  by  parage  seems  to 
have  been  introduced  by  a  definite  statute. Now  and  then,  in  an 
age  when  no  line  was  drawn  between  legislation  and  adjudication, 
there  are  instances  of  general  enactments  in  the  form  of  judicial 
decisions." 

Next  to  the  Exchequer  Rolls,  the  fullest  information  respecting 
Norman  institutions  imder  Henry  was  contained  in  the  returns 
from  the  great  general  inquests  ordered  at  different  occasions  in 
his  reign.  One  of  these,  the  inquest  of  117  2  concerning  military 
tenures,  has  long  been  known  and  used,  but  for  the  others  we  have 
Uttle  more  than  a  bare  mention.  In  Normandy,  as  later  in  Eng- 
land, the  new  ruler  began  at  once  the  gradual  recovery  of  the  lost 
portions  of  his  demesne  through  the  machinery  of  the  sworn  in- 
quest; and  we  have  record  of  such  inquests  held  at  Caen  before 
1 1 54  to  determine  the  duke's  rights  at  Bayeux,  and,  then  or 
shortly  afterward,  throughout  the  Bessin,^^  while  in  1163  two  of 

see  Tardif,  Elude  sur  les  sources  de  I'ancien  droit  normand,  read  before  the  Congres 
du  Millenaire  in  1911,  of  which  the  part  covering  Henry  II  has  not  yet  appeared. 
On  Henry's  early  legislation  see  infra,  Appendix  I. 

Gervase  of  Canterbury,  i.  198  (DeUsle-Berger,  no.  255);  Benedict  of  Peter- 
borough, i.  269,  ii.  30.   Cf.  also  the  general  ordinance  concerning  the  debts  of  Cru- 
saders issued  at  Verneml  in  1177,  ibid.,  i.  194;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  507. 
■^^  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  180;  cf.  infra,  Appendix  I. 

"  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  336.        "  Powicke,  Loss  of  Normandy,  pp.  69,  loi. 
See  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  241;  the  various  reforms  attributed  to  WilUam  Fitz 
Ralph  in  the  Trcs  Ancien  Coutumier,  cc.  60-65;  ^^^d  the  unpubUshed  example  in 
Appendix  H,  no.  9. 

Livre  noir,  nos.  13,  35,  138;  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  68*,  76*,  38.  On  the  pro- 
cedure see  infra,  Chapter  VI. 


i6o 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


his  justices  made  inquiry,  diocese  by  diocese,  concerning  the  rents 
and  customs  pertaining  to  the  duke  and  his  barons.'®  This  was  not 
entirely  effectual,  and  in  1 171  the  income  of  the  duchy  was  almost 
doubled  by  an  inquest  held  throughout  Normandy  to  ascertain 
the  lands  and  forest  and  other  portions  of  the  demesne  which  had 
been  occupied  since  the  death  of  Henry  I.'^  Of  this  systematic 
survey  we  are  fortunate  in  having,  besides  the  references  in  the 
Exchequer  Rolls  and  possible  indications  in  cartularies  and 
in  the  Coutumier  des  Jorets  of  Hector  of  Chartres,^"  the  full  returns 
for  the  vicomte  of  the  Avranchin,^'  which  give  us  an  exact  picture 
of  the  king's  rights  and  his  administration  in  this  district.  Per- 
haps we  may  coimect  with  the  same  inquest  a  still  more  important 
document  of  Henry's  reign,  the  so-called  iurea  regalis,  preserved 
in  the  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier    and  containing  a  statement  of  the 

"  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  344.  Roger  of  Wendover  (i.  25)  speaks  of  an  'inquisitio 
generalis  '  in  England  this  year,  but  he  plainly  has  In  mind  the  inquest  of  knights' 
fees  of  1 166.  The  Inquest  of  Sheriffs  of  11 70  is  the  nearest  English  analogy  to  the 
Norman  inquests  of  1163  and  1171;  see  Stubbs-Davis,  Select  Charters  (1913), 
p.  174;  and  on  the  returns  Round,  The  Commune  of  London,  pp.  125-136. 

"  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  28. 

1'  Indicated  by  the  phrase  '  recuperatus  per  iuream,'  Stapleton,  passim. 

^'  Notably  in  the  cartulary  of  Fecamp  (Valin,  p.  269;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  338), 
where  there  is  a  reference  to  the  rights  of  the  duke  as  recognized  and  recorded  in 
his  roll;  and  in  the  Bayeux  cartularies  {Livre  noir,  no.  46;  Livre  rouge,  no.  46), 
where  the  phrase  '  recognitum  autem  fuit '  shows  that  an  extract  has  been  made 
from  a  more  comprehensive  document.  Being  subsequent  to  the  accession  of 
Bishop  Henry  in  1165,  the  Bayeux  document  is  not  a  part  of  the  earlier  inquests 
for  this  district  nor  connected  with  the  general  inquest  of  1163,  and  the  mention 
of  WUliam  Fitz  John  seems  to  place  it  before  the  close  of  11 72  (see,  on  the  date  of 
his  death,  Delisle,  p.  480,  where  it  should  be  observed  that  the  entr>'  of  11 80  refers 
to  an  old  account).  The  portion  of  the  original  inquest  which  concerned  the  king 
would  naturally  be  omitted  in  drawing  up  a  statement  for  the  benefit  of  the  bishop. 

Preserved  in  the  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure;  see  Michel  Prevost,  Etude 
sur  la  f Orel  de  Roumare  (Rouen,  1904),  pp.  354-365.  The  numerous  references  to 
Henry  in  the  Coutumier,  which  appeared  to  Beaurepaire  (B.  6..  C,  bcvii.  508)  to 
point  to  a  general  inquest  on  the  forests,  seem  rather  to  cite  his  charters. 

2'  Printed  by  DeUsle,  pp.  345-347.  Cf.  Powicke,  in  E.  H.  R.,  xxv.  710  f.;  and 
for  the  date,  Haskins,  ibid.,  xxvi.  326-328;  and  Appendix  K. 

Ed.  Tardif,  pp.  59-65.  The  iurea  cannot  be  later  than  the  death  of  WiUiam 
Patric  in  11 74,  and  it  is  anterior  to  11 72  if  we  accept  Sir  George  Warner's  date  for 
the  death  of  William  Fitz  John  {supra,  note  19);  but  there  is  nothing  to  connect  it 
with  any  one  year,  and  it  may  belong  with  the  inquest  of  11 63  or  with  the  earlier 
inquiries  in  the  Bessin.  In  any  case,  in  spite  of  its  general  form,  it  was  the  result  of 


HENRY  II 


i6i 


duke's  reserved  jurisdiction  and  his  rights  over  wardship,  eras  pice, 
wreck,  and  treasure  trove.  Ducal  example,  if  not  ducal  precept, 
is  doubtless  responsible  for  the  exact  surveys  of  the  possessions  of 
religious  houses  which  were  made  in  this  reign  and  of  which  the 
chief  Norman  instance  is  the  detailed  inquest  on  the  manors  of  La 
Trinite  de  Caen.^*  The  mihtary  inquest  of  1172  was  a  natural 
consequence  of  the  Enghsh  inquiry  of  11 66,  itself  perhaps  sug- 
gested by  Sicilian  precedents,"  but,  save  in  the  case  of  the  bishop 
of  Bayeux  and  the  abbot  of  Mont-Saint-Michel,"  we  have  only 
the  general  summary  and  not,  as  in  the  parallel  EngUsh  case,  the 
original  returns  made  by  the  tenants. 

It  would  be  especially  interesting  to  know  in  some  detail  the 
history  of  Henry's  early  years  as  duke,  not  only  because  of  their 
importance  in  forming  the  youth  who  was  at  twenty-one  to  be- 
come ruler  of  the  vast  Norman  empire,  but  also  because  we  might 
then  study  the  institutions  of  the  duchy  and  the  poHcy  of  its  ruler 
before  the  union  with  England  reopened  the  way  to  possible  modi- 
fication from  without.  Unfortunately  the  thirty  ducal  charters 

a  local  inquest,  for  all  the  jurors  are  in  some  way  connected  with  the  Bessin  and 
the  statement  concerning  the  fishing  rights  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux  and  the  earl  of 
Chester  points  to  the  same  region.  That  William  Fitz  John  was  connected  with 
earlier  inquests  in  the  Bessin  {infra,  note  74)  is  pointed  out  by  Tardif  {&liide  sur 
les  sources,  i.  12),  who,  however,  knows  nothing  of  the  inquest  of  1171,  in  which 
year  William  was  also  justiciar  (Round,  no.  456;  M.  A.  N.,  xv.  198).  E.  Perrot, 
Les  cas  royaux  (Paris,  1910),  p.  306  f.,  assigns  the  iurea  to  ca.  1150. 

^  MS.  Lat.  5650,  fl.  60V-87,  where  the  mention  of  Wilham  du  Hommet  (f.  82) 
shows  that  the  inquests  belong  to  the  latter  part  of  this  reign  and  not  to  the  earlier 
half  of  the  century,  as  suggested  by  H.  Legras,  Le  hourgage  de  Caen,  p.  37,  note. 
The  whole  is  to  be  published  by  R.  N.  Sauvage  in  the  Bibliolheqiie  de  droit  normand. 
English  examples  of  monastic  inquests  in  this  period  are  those  of  the  Ramsey 
Cartulary,  m.  224-314;  the  inquest  of  1181  in  the  Domesday  of  St.  Paul's;  and  the 
Glastonbury  inquisition  of  ii8g.  For  a  writ  of  Henry  II  granting  the  monks  of 
Canterbury  permission  to  hold  such  inquests  on  their  lands,  see  DeUsle-Berger,  no. 
425- 

^*  H.  F.,  xxiii.  693-699;  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  pp.  624-647.   On  the  text 
see  Powicke,  in  E.  H.  R.,  xxvi.  89-93;  on  the  importance  of  the  document  for  the 
'history  of  the  Norman  baronage,  see  his  Loss  of  Normandy,  pp.  482-520. 
See  my  discussion  in  E.  H.  R.,  xxvi.  661-664. 
^  M.  A.  N.,  viii.  425-431;  H.  F.,  xxiii.  699-702.   These  returns  were  based  on 
the  inquest  of  1133  and  represent  still  earlier  conditions,  snpra,  p.  15. 
^  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  296-303;  H.  F.,  xxiii.  703-705. 


l62 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


which  constitute  our  sole  source  for  Norman  government  between 
1 1 50  and  1 1 54  give  few  answers  to  the  many  questions  we  should 
like  to  put.  So  far  as  they  tell  us  anything,  they  show  the  young 
duke  surrounded  by  his  father's  advisers  and  maintaining  his 
father's  poHcy,  itself  a  continuation  of  the  system  of  Henry  1,28 
but  we  can  also  discern  certain  new  names  which  are  to  rise  to 
importance  in  the  ensuing  period.  Reginald  of  Saint-Valery  is  still 
seneschal,^*  and  so  are  Robert  de  Courcy,  Robert  de  Neufbourgj^" 
and  Richard  de  la  Haie;  but  Manasses  Bisset  and  Humphrey  de 
Bohim  also  appear  with  this  title/^  while  William  the  marshal, 
Richard  du  Hommet  the  constable,^'  and  Warin  Fitz  Gerald  the 
chamberlain  are  new.  Besides  Richard  de  Bohun,  who  con- 
tinues to  act  as  chancellor,  at  least  until  1151,  we  find  another 
chancellor,  William,^^  and  a  chancellor's  clerk  and  keeper  of  the 

Supra,  Chapter  IV.  The  writ  for  Heauville  in  Delisle-Berger,  no.  29*,  is,  save 
for  the  witnesses  and  the  insertion  of  avi  mei,  an  exact  repetition  of  the  writ  of  Geof- 
frey for  the  same  establishment  printed  above,  Chapter  IV,  no.  7a.  The  following 
charter  of  1150-1151  for  the  chapter  of  Chartres  is  not  in  DeHsle-Berger:  '  H.  dux 
Normannorum  G.  comiti  MeUendi  et  WUlelmo  de  Hangemara  et  Roberto  de  HaviUa 
et  omnibus  fideUbus  suis  totius  Normannie  salutem.  Sciatis  me  resaisisse  canonicos 
Sancte  Marie  Camotensis  ecclesie  de  decima  et  de  ecclesia  de  HaviUa,  ideoque 
mando  et  firmiter  precipio  quod  ecclesiam  et  decimam  teneant  in  bono  et  Ln  pace 
iuste  et  integre  salvis  rectis  suis  omnibus  Ulis  hominibus,  ubi  ea  sibi  fieri  debent, 
qui  in  predicta  ecclesia  aut  decima  aliquid  clamaverint  rationabOiter.  Testibus 
Alexandro  de  Bohun,  Willelmo  Trosebot,  Stephano  de  BeUo  Campo,  apud  Rotho- 
magum  '  (MS.  Lat.  5185  I,  p.  328;  not  in  the  printed  cartulary).  Delisle-Berger 
also  omit  a  charter  of  1152-1154,  printed  in  Revue  cathoUque  de  Normandie,  vii.  446. 

^  DeUsle-Berger,  nos.  8*,  11*,  35*-37*,  44*.  See  in  general  the  hst  of  witnesses 
to  Henry's  early  charters  in  Delisle,  p.  133  f.,  where,  however,  the  ofl6cial  titles  are 
not  always  given  and  no  distinction  is  made  between  Normandy  and  Anjou. 

Robert  de  Neufbourg  is  not  called  seneschal  in  documents  before  1155,  but 
his  activity  as  justice  and  his  precedence  in  charters  make  it  probable  that  he  held 
this  dignity  also  under  Geoffrey  and  during  the  early  years  of  Henry.  See  Chapter 
IV,  note  87. 

Delisle,  p.  133  f.;  Livre  noir,  no.  7. 

'2  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  48*-5o*,  63*,  65*,  68*,  76*;  cf.  \'emon  Harcourt,  His 
Grace  the  Steward,  p.  37. 

^  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  50*,  51*,  63*,  65*-68*,  72*,  76*.  Humphrey  Fitz  Odo  and 
WiUiam  of  Roumare  also  appear  as  constables  (DeUsle-Berger,  nos.  10*,  42*),  and 
stiU  others  appear  in  no.  55*.   For  WUUam  the  marshal  see  no.  13*. 

^*  DeUsle-Berger,  nos.  48*,  49*,  57*,  76*. 

DeUsle,  p.  88,  note;  DeUsle-Berger,  nos.  13*,  15*,  36*,  50*,  52*,  65*.  I  do  not 
understand  why  DeUsle  dismisses  the  early  chanceUors  with  bare  mention;  certainly 
Henry's  chancery  does  not  begin  its  history  in  1154.    See  E.  H.  R.,  xxxii.  597. 


HENRY  II  163 

seal,  Maurice,^^  who  need  clearing  up.  The  most  notable  among 
these  new  men  is  the  clever  and  ambitious  Bishop  Amulf  of 
Lisieux,  who  heads  the  lists  of  witnesses  to  Henry's  charters  and 
the  list  of  justices  in  his  cwna,"  thus  restoring  the  office  of  justiciar 
which  his  predecessor  Bishop  John  had  held  under  Henry  I  and 
which  had  disappeared  under  Geoffrey.  Of  humbler  servants  we 
find  Odo  hosiiarius,  doubtless  the  usher  of  this  name  who  appears 
in  the  Pipe  Rolls  and  perhaps  the  Odo  of  Falaise,  regiorum  com- 
putator  redituum,  who  was  cured  of  blindness  at  the  tomb  of 
Becket.^*  The  curia  meets  in  different  parts  of  Normandy  — 
Rouen,  Lisieux,  Domfront  —  and  has  its  share  of  judicial  busi- 
ness :  there  the  abbot  of  Aunay  proves  his  right  to  the  church  of 
Cenilly,  the  abbot  of  Fecamp  to  his  tithes  in  the  neighboring 
forest,  the  abbot  of  Savigny  to  the  land  claimed  by  Robert  Fitz 
Ralph.*"  We  get  glimpses  of  a  body  of  justices  busy  with  the  hold- 
ing of  sworn  inquests  and  the  protection  of  legal  rights;  and 
there  are  local  vicomtes  and  baillis  and  porters,  all  receiving  their 
orders  in  the  sharp,  crisp  language  of  the  Anglo-Norman  writ.*^ 
So  far  as  the  sources  of  information  are  concerned,  the  period 
from  1 1 54  to  1 189  is  divided  into  two  almost  equal  parts  by  the 
change  of  the  king's  style  in  1172-1173,  which  separates  his  char- 
ters into  two  groups,  according  as  they  do  or  do  not  contain  the 
words  Dei  gratia  in  the  title. These  groups  do  not  differ  notably 
in  number,  but  the  materials  for  the  second  half  of  the  reign 
are  the  fuller,  since  the  charters  are  there  reenforced  by  the 
Exchequer  Rolls  and  by  a  larger  number  of  records  of  judicial  de- 
cisions. The  earlier  period,  is,  however,  the  more  interesting  from 
a  constitutional  point  of  view  as  being  a  period  of  origins,  and  this 

Delisle-Berger,  nos.  20*,  37*,  44*. 

"  Ibid.,  nos.  11*,  34*-37*,  42*,  45*,  68*,  72*,  75*,  76*,  80*.  For  the  disappear- 
ance of  the  justiciarship  under  Geoffrey,  see  snpra,  p.  146. 

"  He  is  the  sole  witness  to  Delisle-Berger,  no.  38*.  For  Odo  of  Falaise  see 
Materials  for  the  History  of  Thomas  Becket,  ii.  185. 

"  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  32*,  67*,  75*;  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  255,  259.    Cf.  also 
the  large  gathering  at  Bayeux  in  November  1151:  DeUsle-Berger,  no.  20*. 
Delisle-Berger,  nos.  32*,  67*,  75*;  Appendix  H,  no.  3. 

*^  DeUsle-Berger, nos. 28*,  29*, 32*-34*, 41*, 66*,  67*, 80* ;  Revue  catholique, vii. 446. 

<2  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  11*,  14*,  15*,  35*,  36*,  38*,  43*,  66*. 

^  Delisle,  pp.  12-38. 


164 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


is  notably  true  of  the  years  between  11 54  and  1164,  preliminary 
to  the  struggle  with  the  Church  and  the  great  legislative  measures 
of  the  reign  in  England,  but  as  yet  obscure  on  both  sides  of  the 
Channel.  The  possibihty  of  Norman  precedents,  especially  in 
matters  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  and  ci\'il  procedure,  requires 
a  careful  sifting  of  aU  the  information  that  has  reached  us  from 
what  seems  to  have  been  a  formative  period  in  Henry's  policy. 

Let  us  first  consider  the  administration  of  justice.  Of  the  judi- 
cial business  that  came  before  the  duke  himself  in  his  curia  we 
have  only  the  sUghtest  indications,*^  and  these  tell  us  next  to 
nothing  in  the  earlier  years.  Between  11 54  and  1164  the  king 
spent  half  his  time  in  England,  while  the  affairs  of  his  other 
dominions  claimed  many  of  the  busy  months  he  passed  on  the 
Continent.  If  Normandy  was  to  have  an  effective  judicial  system, 
it  must  be  organized  to  work  in  the  king's  long  absences  as  well  as 
under  his  immediate  supervision.  From  his  father  and  grand- 
father Henry  inherited  the  institution  of  a  regular  body  of  jus- 
tices, both  in  the  curia  and  in  local  affairs,  which  he  had  only  to 
develop  and  adapt  to  the  needs  of  a  rapidly  expanding  ducal 
jurisdiction.  In  this  process  there  was  doubtless  constant  experi- 
mentation, both  with  men  and  with  methods,  such  as  we  can 
follow  somewhat  more  closely  in  England  later  in  the  reign;  but 
for  the  earlier  years  the  Norman  evidence  happens  to  be  fuUy  as 
abundant  as  the  English,*^  and  shows  us  some  features  of  the 
system  with  reasonable  clearness. 

First  of  all  there  is  a  distinction  between  the  ordinary  justices 
and  the  justiciar  of  Normandy,  iusticia  mea  Normannie.^  Ordi- 
narily, as  imder  Henry  I,*^  there  would  seem  to  have  been  two 

"  M.  j4.  iV.,  XV.  198;  Delisle,  p.  43;  in/ra,  Appendix  H,  no.  3.  .\n  example  from 
the  latter  part  of  the  reign  is  found  in  an  agreement  between  the  abbot  of  Saint- 
Pierre-sur-Dive  and  Ger\'ase  de  Fresnay,  i  May  1181,  'coram  domino  rege  et 
iusticia  sua  '  (original  in  Archives  of  the  Calvados, /(?W5  Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive) . 
On  which  see  Stubbs,  introduction  to  Benedict  of  Peterborough,  ii,  p.  Lxiv. 

<6  Notably  in  the  clause  of  the  king's  writs, '  nisi  feceris  iusticia  mea  Normannie 
faciat  fieri ':  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  13,  14,  365,  368,  382;  Roimd,  nos.  44,  949;  cf. 
Livre  noir,  no.  37,  of  Henrj'  I.  In  other  writs  we  find  in  the  same  clause  only 
iusticia  mea:  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  38,  91,  99,  155,  206  f.,  228  f.,  335,  342,  346,  369  f. 
Sometimes  the  justice  is  mentioned  by  name:  ibid.,  nos.  66*  f.,  75*,  21,  22. 

"  Supra,  Chapter  III. 


HENRY  II 


justiciars,  a  bishop  and  the  chief  seneschal,  who  frequently  sit 
together,  but  at  least  five  persons  are  known  to  have  acted  in  this 
capacity  in  this  period,  and  the  available  sources  do  not  enable  us 
to  fix  their  succession  and  relation  to  one  another  with  the  pre- 
cision which  has  sometimes  been  sought.*^  As  under  Geoft'rey,^' 
the  courts  held  by  the  justiciars  are  called  assizes,^"  often,  by  way 
of  distinction  from  the  lesser  courts,  full  assizes  {plena  assisia);^^ 
and  if  we  may  judge  from  a  full  assize  held  at  Caen  in  1 157  and 
attended  by  the  barons  from  the  four  great  regions  of  the  west,^^ 
they  comprehended  several  administrative  districts.  Meetings 
at  Caen  and  Rouen  are  frequent,  but  not  sufficiently  regular  to 
indicate  the  existence  of  a  permanent  central  ctiria,  and  the 
justiciars  are  clearly  itinerant.  The  lack  of  any  rolls  prevents  our 
tracing  their  circuits,  but  the  records  of  cases  are  more  nmnerous 
than  those  which  have  been  collected  for  England  in  the  same 
period. In  1155,  before  the  king  had  returned  from  his  corona- 
tion. Bishop  Arnulf  of  Lisieux  and  Robert  of  Neufbourg  the  chief 
seneschal,  as  master  justices  of  all  Normandy,  hold  assizes  at 
Carentan  and  Domfront."  In  1 157  they  appear  in  two  judgments 
of  the  curia  at  Caen,^^  and  about  the  same  time  in  another  pro- 

<8  Notably  by  Vemon  Harcourt,  His  Grace  the  Steward,  pp.  43-50.  His  at- 
tempt to  sustain  his  theory  of  the  unimportance  of  the  seneschal  by  explaining 
away  the  dapifership  of  Robert  de  Neufbourg  has  been  satisfactorily  disposed  of 
by  Valin,  p.  157  f.  The  charter  of  Henry  II  for  Savigny  (Delisle-Berger,  no.  80), 
in  which  Harcourt  considers  Robert's  style  '  unofi&cial  embellishment,'  is  also  in 
the  Carlulaire  de  Normandie  (MS.  Rouen  1235),  f.  8ov. 

'  In  assisia  mea  apud  Valonias,'  infra,  Chapter  VI,  note  95. 
Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  241;  M.  A.  N .,  xv.  197.    Note  in  Henry's  writ  in  Livte 
noir,  no.  10,  '  quando  fui  apud  Baiocas  ad  asisiam  meam,'  the  order  to  William 
Patric  to  be  '  ad  primam  asisam  que  erit  citra  Lexovium  '  (anterior  to  1172-1173, 
Delisle-Berger,  no.  335). 

"  'In  plena  assisia  apud  Abrincas':  DeviUe,  Analyse,  p.  18;  Valin,  p.  268; 
Delisle-Berger,  no.  153.  'In  plena  assisia  apud  Rothomagum':  Appendix  H, 
no.  6;  cartulary  of  Saint-fivroul,  no.  172.  '  In  plena  assisia  apud  Argentomum  ': 
ibid.,  no.  250  (1190). 

'  In  plenaria  curia  regis,  utpote  in  assisa  ubi  erant  barones  iiii  comitatuum ' : 
Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  251. 

"  On  records  in  England,  see  Pollock  and  Maitland,  i.  156. 

^  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  241. 

Ibid.,  ii.  251;  M.  A.  N.,xv.  197  (original  in  Archives  of  the  Ome,  H.  3912). 
Cf.  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  98,  102. 


i66 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


ceeding,  likewise  at  Caen,  in  part  of  which  the  bishop  of  Lisieux 
is  in  his  absence  replaced  by  two  barons.^  .Before  his  death  in 
1 1 59  we  find  Robert  de  Neufbourg  in  various  other  cases  at 
Avranches,  Bayeux,  Caen,  and  Rouen."  In  1 157  there  appears 
with  him  at  Rouen  Rotrou,  bishop  of  Evreux,**  who  is  active  in 
the  administration  of  justice  throughout  the  duchy  during  the 
next  seven  years  and  is  specifically  called  '  justiciar  of  Nor- 
mandy.' *3  At  times  Rotrou  is  accompanied  by  Reginald 
of  Saint- Valery  as  justiciar,^"  and  in  1163  they  hold  an  iter 
throughout  the  duchy  to  ascertain  the  respective  rights  of  king 
and  barons."   Richard  du  Hommet  the  constable  also  appears 

Appendix  H,  nos.  3,  4. 

Livre  noir,  nos.  27,  28,  35;  Valin,  p.  267  f.;  M.  A.  N.,  xv.  ig8;  Deville, 
Analyse,  pp.  18,  42;  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  21,  22,  38,  121,  153;  Round,  no.  341; 
Appendix  H,  nos.  3-5.  He  is  still  '  dapifer  et  iusticia  totius  Nonnannie  '  when  he 
retires  to  Bee  in  1159:  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  322,  Li.  174.  Cf.  Delisle,  pp.  445-447; 
Harcourt,  p.  46  f. 

'  In  presencia  domini  Rotroldi  episcopi  Ebroicensis  et  Roberti  de  Novo  Burgo 
dapiferi  et  Gualeranni  comitis  de  Mellent  et  Rogerii  abbatis  Sancti  Wandregisili  et 
Rogerii  abbatis  Sancti  Audoeni  Rothomagensis  et  Hugonis  de  Gomaio  et  Godardi 
de  VaUibus  et  Adam  de  WacnevUla  et  Roberti  filii  Haimerici,  apud  Rothomagum. 
Huius  pactionis  sunt  testes.  .  .  .'  Cartulary  of  Saint-WandrUle,  D,  ii,  14.  The 
first  set  of  witnesses  is  different  in  the  other  version  which  follows  in  the  cartulary 
and  is  printed  by  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  88;  Round,  no.  172. 

The  following  charter  shows  Rotrou  and  Robert  de  Neufbourg  in  the  court  of 
Galeran,  count  of  Meulan,  probably  sitting  as  ducal  justices,  such  as  we  find  under 
Henry  I  (Chapter  HI,  no.  16)  and  later  in  Henry  II's  reign  {infra,  note  179): 
'  Anno  etiam  ab  incamatione  Domini  miUesimo  centesLmo  quinquagesimo  quinto 
residentibus  in  curia  mea  apud  Brionnium  domino  Rotroth  venerabOi  Ebroicensi 
episcopo  et  domino  Rogerio  abbate  Becci  et  honorabUi  Michaele  predicti  monas- 
terii  patre  atque  domino  Roberto  de  Novoburgo  multisque  aliis  nobilissimis  \Tris, 
ego  Gualerannus  comes  de  Mellent.  .  .  .'   Cartulary  of  Preaux,  no.  68. 

"  Delisle,  p.  455  f.;  Valin,  pp.  268,  270;  infra.  Chapter  VI,  note  93;  Appendix 
H,  nos.  6,  8.  A  document  of  Rotrou  for  Foucarmont  (originals  in  Archives  of  the 
Seine-Inferieure;  also  in  MS.  Rouen  1224,  f.  87)  ends:  '  Hoc  autem  totum  factum 
est  me  presente  et  audiente  et  tunc  temporis  existente  iusticia  Normannie.'  In 
Henry's  great  charter  for  Saint-Etienne,  1156-1161  (Delisle-Berger,  no.  154),  he 
attests  as  '  iustic[ia]  Norm[annie].' 

Delisle,  p.  455;  Valin,  p.  270;  Round,  nos.  133,  134,  491;  Harcourt,  p.  48  f.; 
Delisle-Berger,  nos.  221,  223,  397;  and  Appendix  H,  nos.  7,  8.  Reginald  was  ab- 
sent in  the  East  from  1158  to  1160:  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  316,  ii.  166;  cf.  also  Jaffe- 
L6wenfeld,i?ege5/a,no.  10363.  Pardons  of  Danegeld  in  1156  (Pipe  Roll  2  Henry  II, 
pp.  gf.,  23)  indicate  that  Rotrou  and  Reginald  were  already  members  of  the  curia. 

^  '  Rotrocus  epibcopus  Ebroicensis  et  Rainaldus  de  Sancto  Walerio  fecerunt  ia 


HENRY  II 


167 


with  this  title,*^  and  Bishop  Philip  of  Bayeux  may  also  have 
held  it.«» 

These  courts  were  doubtless  attended  by  the  chief  barons  and 
royal  ofl&cers  of  the  region,^*  some  of  whom  evidently  acted  as 
judges,  although  the  title  of  justice  appears  rarely  in  the  notices  of 
decisions  and  our  Usts  of  royal  ofl&cers  are  so  incomplete  that  in 
most  instances  it  is  impossible  to  distinguish  the  officials  from  the 
barons.  A  good  example  is  furnished  by  an  assize  held  at  Ba- 
yeux by  the  bishop  of  Evreux  and  Reginald  of  Saint- Valery 
between  1161  and  1165,  where  we  find  the  bishops  of  Lisieux  and 
Avranches,  Richard  son  of  the  earl  of  Gloucester,  Godard  de 
Vaux,  one  of  the  king's  justices,  Etard  Poulain,  one  of  his  baillis 
in  the  Bessin,^^  Osbert  de  la  Heuse,  constable  of  Cherbourg," 
Robert  Fitz  Bernard,  prevot  of  Caen,''*  Graverend  d'Evrecy, 
vicomte,^^  Richard  de  Vaux,  vidame  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux,^"  and 
Roger  d'Arri,  canon  of  Bayeux  and  later  a  permanent  official  of 
the  Exchequer^i  The  vicomtes  and  baillis  acted  as  judges  in  their 

Normannia  recognoscere  iussu  regis,  per  episcopatus,  legales  redditus  et  consuetu- 
dines  ad  regem  et  ad  barones  pertinentes ' :  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  344. 

A  judgment  of  1164  is  rendered  '  apud  Cadomum  [coram]  abbate  de  Troamo, 
Ricardo  de  Humet  tunc  temporis  iustitia  regis,  Guillelmo  filio  lohannis,  Renaldo 
de  Gerponvilla,  Godardo  de  Vaux,  Guillelmo  de  Varaville,  lordane  Taxone,  Ricardo 
filio  comitis,  Guillelmo  Crasso,  Henrico  de  Agnis,  Nicholao  de  Veies,  Graver[endo] 
de  Vrecie,  Roberto  filio  Bernardi,  Symone  de  Scuris,  Henrico  filio  Corbini,  Roberto 
Pigache,  Guillelmo  Forti,  PhUippo  fratre  Vitalis  monachi,  Guillelmo  Gernon,  Rogero 
Darned,  Ricardo  de  Vaux,  lohanne  Cumin  ' :  cartulary  of  S.-Wandrille,  Q,  ii,  36. 
See  also  injra,  Appendix  H,  no.  6. 

^  He  is  specially  mentioned  with  Robert  de  Neufbourg  in  Delisle-Berger,  no.  1 20, 
and  with  Rotrou  in  Valin,  p.  268  (Delisle-Berger,  no.  153).  Cf.  Harcourt,  p.  47, 
note. 

^  '  Interfuerunt  huic  concordie  comes  de  Mellent,  comes  Ebroicensis,  comes 
Giffardus,  et  multi  barones  et  servientes  regis  de  diversis  partibus.'  Charter  of 
Rotrou:  Delisle,  p.  455;  Le  Prevost,  Ewre,  i.  551. 

M.  A.  N.,  XV.  197;  Valin,  p.  270.   Cf.  the  longer  li:-t  in  the  assize  at  Caen  in 
1 164,  supra,  note  62,  in  which  nearly  aU  these  names  reappear. 
Infra,  notes  77-79. 
DeUsle,  p.  409. 
"  Delisle-Berger,  no.  66*;  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  251. 
«'  Ibid.,  ii.  248. 
'»  Ibid.,  ii.  258. 

^  See  infra,  note  125,  the  index  to  the  Litre  noir,  and  the  list  of  later  assizes  in 
Appendix  J. 


i68 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


own  districts/^  where  an  ordinance  of  1 159  required  them  to  hold 
court  once  a  month/^  and  they  naturally  sat  with  the  justiciars  in 
the  larger  assizes,  where  they  are  sometimes  specifically  called 
justices.  Thus  William  Fitz  John  and  Etard  Poulain,  the  chief 
royal  officers  in  the  Bessin/*  both  with  the  title  of  haillivi  regis,''^ 
are  constantly  foimd  in  the  assizes  of  Lower  Normandy.  William 
can  be  traced  in  the  local  administration  of  justice  as  well  as  in  the 
assizes,  and  later  in  the  reign  becomes  dapifer,  justice,  and  pro- 
curator Normannie.''^  Etard  sits  in  two  cases  at  Caen  in  11 57,  in 
one  of  them  apparently  with  the  title  of  justiciar,"  is  iusticia  regis 
at  Lisieux  in  1161,^*  and  appears  in  the  court  elsewhere.^'  He 
is  frequently  accompanied  by  Godard  de  Vaux,  who  replaces  the 
bishop  of  Lisieux  at  Caen  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign,  sits  at 
Caen  and  Rouen  in  1157,^°  and  appears  at  various  other  sessions  at 
Rouen  in  this  period,  often  with  a  certain  Adam  de  Warmeville, 
who  may  also  have  been  a  justice. Our  information  does  not 
permit  us  to  separate  the  local  from  the  itinerant  judges  in  the 
records  of  the  assizes,  still  less  to  follow  the  work  of  the  local 
courts.  Doubtless  arrangements  varied  locally  and  in  the  course 
of  the  reign,  and  apparently  the  confusion  of  local  areas  stood  in 
the  way  of  a  set  of  courts  as  simple  and  uniform  as  the  English. 

Thus  at  Pontaudemer  and  in  the  territory  of  Brionne,  William  de  Morville 
is  '  custos  et  iusticia  iussu  regis  Henrici ':  cartulary  of  Pontaudemer  (MS.  Rouen 
1232),  fl.  18,  28;  DeUsle-Berger,  no.  368.  At  Mortain  in  1162-1163  we  find  the 
constable,  Robert  Boquerel  {Analecta  Bollandiana,  ii.  527;  cf.  DeUsle-Berger,  nos. 
79,  364),  holding  the  king's  court  (Delisle,  p.  440;  original  in  MS.  Rouen  3122, 
no.  4);  and  somewhat  later  the  seneschal  of  Mortain,  Nigel,  addressed  as  one  of 
the  king's  justices  (Stapleton,  i,  p.  Ixv;  DeUsle,  pp.  210,  408).  See  infra,  note  170. 
Cf.  'the  king's  justices  of  Caux '  (1154-1165):  Sommenil,  Chronicon  Valassense 
(Rouen,  1868),  p.  83. 

Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  i8o. 

Delisle,  pp.  366,  479  f.;  Tardif,  Tres  Ancien  Coulumier,  p.  no;  Livre  noir, 
nos.  9,  12;  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  13,  228. 

'5  Delisle,  p.  447;  infra.  Appendix  H,  nos.  3,  4. 

''^  Livre  noir,  nos.  27,  28,  35,  36,  46;  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  31,  251  f.;  Delisle- 
Berger,  nos.  66*,  14,  21,  22,  38,  305;  M.  A.  N.,  xv.  198;  supra,  notes  56,  62. 
Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  252;  M.A.  N.,  x\'.  197. 
Infra,  note  loi.  "  Appendix  H,  no.  5. 

Supra,  note  58;  infra.  Appendix  H,  nos.  3,  4. 
81  Stipra,  notes  58,  59;  infra.  Chapter  Yl,  note  93;  Appendix  H,  nos.  3,  5-8; 
Delisle,  p.  456;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  366;  Round,  no.  341 ;  also,  perhaps,  as  justice, 
in  an  illegible  charter  in  the  Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  212. 


HENRY  II 


169 


The  one  clear  point  of  special  importance  is  the  existence  of  a 
well  defined  system  of  itinerant  justices. 

Of  even  greater  interest  is  the  question  of  procedure,  which 
bears  directly  upon  the  development  of  the  jury.  This  problem 
will  be  discussed  in  detail  in  the  following  chapter,  so  that  at  this 
point  it  is  necessary  only  to  indicate  its  relation  to  these  formative 
years  of  Henry's  policy.  In  England,  in  spite  of  the  occasional 
employment  of  the  sworn  inquest  since  the  Conqueror's  time,  we 
have  no  evidence  that  it  was  a  normal  mode  of  trial  before  the 
appearance  of  the  assize  utrum  in  1164,  followed  shortly  by  the 
other  possessory  assizes  and  the  grand  assize.  In  Normandy,  on 
the  other  hand,  writs  ordering  the  determination  of  questions  of 
possession  and  ownership  in  accordance  with  the  duke's  assize 
{secundum  assisiam  meam)  are  found  in  11 56,  as  well  as  in 
Geoffrey's  reign,  while  we  find  an  ordinary  litigant  demanding  an 
assize  against  Saint-Etienne  before  1159.  In  that  year  a  question 
concerning  tithes  and  presentation  is  decided  by  recognition  on 
the  duke's  court,  while  at  Christmas  Henry  issued  a  formal 
ordinance  directing  the  use  of  the  evidence  of  neighbors  in  his 
local  courts.  Accordingly  it  would  appear  that  the  recognition 
had  become  the  normal  procedure  in  certain  types  of  actions  con- 
cerning land,  while  the  testimony  of  the  vicinage  had  been  pre- 
scribed in  ecclesiastical  courts  much  as  in  the  Constitutions  of 
Clarendon.  That  matters  had  reached  this  point  on  the  EngUsh 
side  of  the  Channel  does  not  appear  from  any  evidence  as  yet 
brought  to  Hght,  and  in  the  existing  state  of  our  knowledge  it  is 
highly  probable  that  Henry  drew  upon  the  results  of  his  Norman 
experience  in  drafting  his  English  assizes.  There  was,  of  course, 
no  mechanical  transfer,  for  a  restless  experimenter  like  Henry  was 
constantly  reshaping  his  materials,  and  if  we  could  follow  the 
process  in  Normandy,  we  should  probably  find  him  modifying  in 
various  ways  the  procedure  and  the  assize  which  he  had  inherited 
from  his  father.  Something,  too,  must  be  allowed  for  the  natural 
development  of  the  institution  as  it  passed  into  more  general  use, 
but  the  exceptional  is  not  likely  to  have  become  normal  without 
some  direct  action  of  the  sovereign  in  extending  his  prerogative 
procedure  to  his  subjects,  and  in  this  respect  the  evidence  avail- 


170  NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 

able  from  the  years  before  11 64  places  Normandy  in  advance  of 
England. 

There  is  another  field  in  which  the  practice  of  the  Norman 
courts  before  11 64  has  a  special  interest  for  England,  namely  that 
of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  The  struggle  between  Henry  II  and 
Becket,  says  Maitland,^  "has  a  long  Frankish  prologue";  has  it 
also  a  Norman  prologue  ?  A  short  prologue,  at  least,  it  must  have 
had,  for  in  February  1162  a  great  council  was  held  at  Rouen,  in 
which  Henry  "  complained  of  the  bishops  and  their  ofl&cers  and 
his  vicomtes  and  ordered  that  the  prox-isions  of  the  covmcil  of  Lille- 
bonne  should  be  observed."  ^  No  details  are  given,  but  the  men- 
tion of  the  local  ofiicers  and  the  council  of  Lillebonne  shows 
plainly  that  the  question  was  one  of  encroachments  by  the  Church 
which  his  officers  failed  to  prevent.  Just  which  of  the  canons  of 
this  council  the  king  believed  to  have  been  xiolated  we  can  only 
surmise,  but  he  clearly  sought  to  base  his  protest,  as  in  England 
two  years  later,  upon  an  appeal  to  ancient  and  well  estabUshed 
practice,  as  contained  in  a  document  which  had  been  drawn  up 
under  the  Conqueror  in  1080  and  confirmed  by  Henry  I,*^  and 
which  thus  presented  a  more  definite  formulation  of  the  "customs, 
Hberties,  and  dignities  of  his  ancestors  "  than  was  at  hand  in 
England.  From  the  ecclesiastical  point  of  \"iew,  these  canons  had 
become  somewhat  antiquated  by  1162,  since  they  referred  con- 
stantly to  local  Norman  usage  rather  than  to  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  canon  law  which  had  been  more  sharply  formulated  in 

Pollock  and  Maitland,  i.  18. 
^  '  Querimomam  faciens  de  episcopis  et  eonun  ministris  et  \"icecoraitibus  suis, 
iussit  ut  concilium  lulie  Bone  teneretiir: '  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  336. 

The  best  text  of  the  council  of  Lillebonne,  now  preserved  in  the  Archives 
Nationales,  bears  the  seal  of  Henry  I:  Teulet,  Layetles,  i.  25,  no.  22;  Delisle,  Cartu- 
laire  normand,  no.  i.  The  canons  are  also  given  by  Ordericus,  ii.  316-323;  cf.  the 
analysis  given  by  Tardif ,  &ude  sur  Us  sources,  pp.  39-43 ;  and  supra,  Chapter  I,  pp. 
30-35 .  E\-idence  that  they  were  observed  in  the  twelfth  century  is  found  in  a  charter 
of  Audoin,  bishop  of  £\Teux  from  1118  to  1139:  '  Convocatis  ex  more  ad  sj-nodum 
omnibus  presbiteris  nostris^  circadam  quam  ab  Ulis  exigebam  ex  concUii  lulibone 
institutione  et  ecclesiarum  episcopalium  Xormannie  consuetudine,  quoniam  ilia 
gravari  conquerebantur,  eorum  communi  petitione  et  nostrorum  canonicorum  in- 
tercessione  perdonavi ':  Archives  of  the  Eure,  G.  122,  no.  36.  The  canons  of  the 
council  were  frequently  copied  in  legal  collections  relating  to  Normandy. 


HENRY  II 


171 


the  interval,  and  since  they  recognized  the  supremacy  of  the  duke 
and  the  arbitrament  of  his  curia  in  church  matters  to  an  extent 
which  would  not  have  been  admitted  by  the  Church  in  Henry  II's 
time.  It  is,  indeed,  highly  probable  that  Henry's  complaint  was 
based  particularly  upon  the  closing  enactment  of  the  assembly  of 
Lillebonne,  that  the  bishops  should  seize  no  right  of  justice  or  cus- 
tomary dues  beyond  those  there  enumerated  until  they  had 
established  their  claim  in  the  king's  court;  but  the  absence  of 
e\adence  precludes  us  from  examining  the  bearing  of  this  canon 
upon  the  vexed  question  of  crim^inous  clerks.  Some  idea  of  their 
treatment  in  Normandy  can  be  gained  from  a  case  described  by 
Amulf  of  Lisieux,  that  of  a  certain  Henry,  who,  apparently  before 
1 166,  manufactured  false  money  and  put  it  into  circulation  at 
Bayeux.  Convicted  after  confession,  it  is  not  stated  in  what  court, 
he  was  imprisoned  and  fettered  by  the  king's  ofi&cers,  but  finally 
much  effort  of  the  diocesan  secured  his  release  on  condition  of 
abjuring  the  duchy,  and  he  was  degraded  by  the  archbishop.^* 
An  ordinance  of  11 59  requiring  the  testimony  of  neighbors  in 
accusations  by  rural  deans  ^  shows  that  Henry's  dissatisfaction 
with  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  by  archdeacons  and  deans  had 
found  expression  in  Normandy  as  well  as  in  England  before  the 
Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  in  which  it  occupies  a  definite,  though 
subordinate,  place. 

Still  another  claim  which  Henry  made  in  11 64  we  are  able  to 
test  by  Norman  practice,  namely  the  jurisdiction  of  the  king's 
court  over  suits  respecting  advowson  and  presentation.*^  In  1159, 
when  the  bishop  of  Coutances  had  summoned  Ralph  de  la  Mouche 
to  show  by  what  right  he  claimed  the  presentation  of  the  priest  of 
Mesnil-Drey,  a  certain  Osmund  proved  his  right  against  Ralph 

8*  Ep.  123  (Migne,  cci.  144).  Addressed  to  N'  (this,  not  Nicolao,  is  the  reading 
of  the  MS.  used  by  Giles,  St.  John's  College,  Oxford,  126,  as  Mr.  R.  L.  Poole  has 
kindly  ascertained  for  me),  bishop  of  Meaux,  who  does  not  appear  to  have  existed, 
the  text  of  this  letter  requires  further  examination.  The  priest's  brother  Amfredus 
had  forfeited  his  lands  and  gone  into  e.xUe  fifteen  years  before,  and  if  Henry's 
offenses  are  of  the  same  period,  they  would  fall  at  least  as  early  as  1166. 

85  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  180;  cf.  Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  c.  6.  See  infra. 
Chapter  VI,  note  94;  and  Appendix  I. 

"  Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  c.  i.  On  the  probability  of  previous  English 
legislation  concerning  advowsons,  see  Appendix  I. 


172 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


by  sworn  recognition  in  the  king's  court  at  Gavray.**  In  another 
case  anterior  to  1164  the  bishop  of  Evreux,  acting  as  the  duke's 
justiciar  in  full  assize  at  Rouen,  had  adjudged  the  presentation  of 
Le  Sap  to  the  monks  of  Saint-Evroul  against  a  lay  claimant.** 
There  are  also  examples  of  the  bishop's  jurisdiction  in  such  cases 
when  one  or  both  of  the  parties  were  ecclesiastics,^"  so  that  there 
was  some  foundation  for  the  assertion  of  Amulf  of  Lisieux  that 
such  matters  had  always  pertained  to  the  bishop ;  but  the  com- 
prehensive inquest  of  1205  states  specifically  that  in  Henry's 
reign  disputes  respecting  patronage  had  to  be  settled  in  the 
duke's  court  or  in  the  court  of  the  lord  of  whose  fee  the  church  was 
held, ^2  a,nd  this  is  borne  out  by  the  documents. Indeed  more 
than  a  generation  before  11 64  the  monks  of  Chartres,  claiming  the 
church  of  Chandai  in  the  court  of  Richer  of  Laigle,  plead  in  the  lay 
court  iuxta  morem  Normannie.^^  In  the  latter  part  of  Henry  II's 
reign  the  question  whether  a  holding  was  lay  fee  or  alms  was 
matter  for  a  recognition  in  the  king's  court,  as  we  see  from  various 
cases  in  the  cartularies  and  Exchequer  Rolls, as  well  as  from  the 

Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  259. 
8'  Chapter  VI,  note  93. 

^°  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  259;  dispute  between  Archbishop  Hugh  and  the  abbot 
of  Preaux,  cartulary  of  Preaux,  no.  51;  Jordan  Taisson  v.  a  clerk  in  the  court  of 
Henry,  bishop  of  Bayeux,  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H.  5606,  3;  cartularj'  of 
Saint-fivroul,  nos.  231,  233;  infra,  note  125;  Appendix  H,  no.  i. 

^1  Ep.  116:  '  Mota  est  ei  qui  presentaverat  questio  patronatus  in  iudicio  secu- 
lari,  cum  semper  ab  antiquo  cause  huiusmodi  ad  episcopalem  audientiam  per- 
tinerent.' 

^  DeUsle,  Cartidaire  normand,  no.  124;  Round,  no.  1318. 

Stapleton,  i.  5,  12,  64,  96,  114;  cartulary  of  the  chapter  of  Rouen  (MS.  Rouen 
1193),  f.  131;  charter  of  Bishop  Lisiard  of  Seez  in  cartulary  of  Saint-fivroul,  no. 
250  (1190);  and  the  assizes  of  darrein  presentment  in  Round,  no.  438;  Dehsle, 
Jugemenls  de  VEchiqiiier,  no.  35;  the  cartulary  of  Fecamp  (MS.  Rouen  1207),  f. 
70V;  and  DeUsIe-Berger,  no.  651. 

Carlulaire  de  S.-Pere  de  Chartres,  ii.  607;  Round,  no.  1257. 

Stapleton,  i.  55,  64;  B.  E.  C,  i.  545;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  406;  charters  of 
Jordan  de  I'Epesse,  in  Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  1034,  6452  (printed  in  Inven- 
laire  sommaire) ;  charter  of  John  Peril  granting  '  presentationem  ecclesie  Sancti 
Martini  de  Mairoles  (MaroUes,  canton  Lisieux)  cum  omni  iure  patronatus  eiusdem 
ecclesie  et  duas  garbas  decime  eiusdem  ville  et  totius  parochie,  que  recognite  fuerunt 
in  assisa  apud  Monfort  tempore  domini  regis  Henrici  ad  laicum  feodum  '  (copy  of 
cartulary  of  leprosery  of  Lisieux,  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H.  suppl.  486,  f.  9;  cf. 
infra,  Appendix  J,  no.  20). 


HENRY  II 


Coutumier  and  from  the  inquest  of  1205;  yet  it  is  not  possible 
to  say  how  clearly  this  principle  was  established  in  Normandy 
before  the  appearance  of  the  assize  utrum  in  the  Constitutions 
of  Clarendon. That  this  assize  had  a  somewhat  independent 
history  in  Normandy  may  perhaps  be  argued  from  the  divergence 
of  the  Norman  hreve  de  feodo  et  elemosina  from  the  English  assize 
utrum.^^  While  we  have  clear  cases  of  the  decision  of  questions 
of  tithes  and  parish  lands  in  the  duke's  court  before  1164,^^  there 
are  traces  of  the  bishop's  authority  here  also/""  and  there  is  some 
indication  that  the  two  jurisdictions  might  deal  with  the  same 
case,  apparently  without  rivalry.^"^  Here,  as  in  all  questions  con- 
cerning the  Norman  antecedents  of  the  Constitutions  of  Claren- 
don, the  evidence  is  interesting  but  too  scanty  to  be  conclusive. 
In  working  back  from  this  document  it  is  always  well  to  remember 
Maitland's  dictum  that  "  if  as  regards  criminous  clerks  the  Con- 
stitutions of  Clarendon  are  the  high-water-mark  of  the  claims  of 

Tres  Ancien  Coulumier,  c.  i8;  Delisle,  Cartulaire  normand,  no.  124. 

The  case  of  the  rights  of  Saint-Evroul  over  Le  Sap  cannot  be  considered  an 
authentic  example  of  this:  infra,  Chapter  VI,  note  93. 

Brunner,  Schwurgerichte,  pp.  236  f.,  324-326;  Maitland,  Collected  Papers,  ii. 
216;  Bigelow,  History  of  Procedure,  p.  4  f. 

Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  259;  infra,  Appendix  H,  nos.  3,  5,  6.  Cf.  Cartulaire  de 
Notre-Dame  de  Chartres,  i.  187  (1171);  MS.  Lat.  5650,  f.  80. 

"°  E.  g.,  Neustria  Pia,  p.  351  (=  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  iii.  82);  cartulary  of  Saint- 
fivroul,  no.  233;  Vernier,  no.  75;  infra.  Chapter  VI,  note  109;  Appendix  H, 
no.  9. 

Thus  (1156-1159)  we  find  the  prior  of  Perrieres  establishing  his  right  to  the 
tithe  of  fipaney  (Calvados)  in  the  courts  of  the  bishop  of  Seez  (Collection  Moreau, 
Ixviii.  9),  the  archbishop  of  Rouen  {ihid.,  liv.  243;  Archives  of  the  Ome,  H.  2026), 
and  the  king,  the  judgment  being  finally  confirmed  by  Henry:  '  teneat  bene  et  in 
pace  et  quiete  totam  decimam  suam  de  Espanaio  sicut  earn  dirationavit  in  curia  mea 
coram  iusticiis  meis  et  in  curia  archiepiscopi  Rothomagensis  '  (Delisle-Berger,  no. 
109).  We  also  find  the  king's  justices  sitting  in  the  court  of  Bishop  AmuLf  of 
Lisieux  in  11 61  in  a  case  between  Alice  Trubaud  and  the  abbot  of  Caen  against  the 
abbot  of  Troam  concerning  the  advowson  of  Dives:  '  Huius  autem  actionis  sunt 
testes  et  ipsius  iudicii  cooperatores  extiterunt  Normannus  et  lohannes  archidiaconi, 
Fulco  decanus,  Rogerius  filius  Aini  canonicus  et  alii  plures  canonici  Lexovienses,  sed 
et  barones  regis  Radulfus  de  Tomeio,  Robertus  de  Montfort,  Aicardus  Pulcin 
iusticia  regis':  cartulary  of  Troam  (MS.  Lat.  10086),  f.  159;  cf.  the  charters  of 
Amulf  and  Cardinal  Henry  of  Pisa,  f.  152V.;  and  Sauvage,  Troam,  p.  166,  n.  5. 
For  a  case  of  1147  '  iustitia  archiepiscopi  Rothomagensis  et  comitis  de  Mellent,' 
see  Valin,  p.  264.  See  also  Round,  no.  138;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  650;  Liverani, 
Spicikgium  Liberianum  (Florence,  1864),  p.  579. 


174 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


secular  justice,  as  regards  the  title  to  lands  they  are  the  low-water- 
mark." 

After  1 1 64  the  point  of  view  of  our  study  must  be  somewhat 
shifted.  Thanks  to  a  series  of  legislative  monuments  and  treatises 
which  have  no  Norman  analogues,  we  can  trace  with  some  con- 
fidence the  course  of  EngUsh  constitutional  development,  while 
our  knowledge  of  Norman  affairs  is  too  scanty  to  permit  following 
the  evolution  of  institutions  or  poUcies.  The  most  that  we  can 
attempt  is  to  reconstruct  the  chief  elements  of  judicial  and 
fiscal  organization  and  procedure,  in  the  hope  of  furnishing  an 
instructive  parallel  to  better  known  English  conditions. 

The  turning-point  in  the  constitutional  history  of  Normandy 
during  the  latter  part  of  Henry's  reign  is  the  year  11 76,  when  the 
death  of  the  seneschal  and  justiciar,  William  de  Courcy,^"'  led  the 
king  to  appoint  in  his  place  as  ruler  of  Normandy  Richard  of 
Ilchester,  bishop  of  Winchester,  long  a  trusted  officer  of  the  Eng- 
hsh  Exchequer,  where  he  had  charge  of  a  special  roll  and  proved 
himself  particularly  "  alert  and  businesslike  in  reckonings  and  the 
writing  of  rolls  and  writs."  Very  possibly  the  constitutional 
development  of  Normandy  may  have  lagged  behind  that  of  Eng- 
land in  the  busy  years  which  intervened  between  the  Constitu- 
tions of  Clarendon  and  the  Assize  of  Northampton;  very  likely 
its  administration  had  fallen  into  disorder  after  the  rebeUion  of 
1 1 73 ;  certain  it  is  that  Richard  was  excellently  qualified  by  talent 
and  experience  to  imdertake  the  reorganization  of  governmental 

Collected  Papers,  ii.  216. 
""^  On  whom  see  Delisle,  Henri  II,  pp.  476-478. 

1'"  Dialogus,  bk.  i,  c.  5  (Oxford  ed.,  p.  77).  On  Richard  see  Miss  Norgate,  in 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  xlviii.  194;  Delisle,  pp.  431-434;  R.  L.  Poole, 
Tlte  Exchequer  in  the  T'ivelfth  Century,  p.  1 16  ff .  It  is  not  quite  true,  as  Miss  Noigate 
says,  that  we  have  no  trace  of  his  acti\-ity  during  his  sojourn  in  Normandy.  He  is 
mentioned  in  three  documents:  a  charter  of  PhiUppa  Rosel  given  at  the  Exchequer 
in  1 1 76  (original  in  British  Museum,  Add.  Ch.  15278;  Round,  no.  517);  an  assize 
which  he  held  at  Caen  in  January,  11 77  {Livre  noir,  no.  95;  DeUsle,  p.  347);  and 
an  assize  held  at  IMontfort  '  quo  tempore  Ricardus  Wintoniensis  episcopus  in 
Normannia  post  regem  iudex  erat  et  maior  iustitia  '  (Appendix  H,  no.  10).  A 
tallage  levied  by  him  is  still  carried  on  the  roll  of  11 80  (Stapleton,  i.  74).  DeUsle- 
Berger,  no.  569,  probably  belongs  to  these  years;  cf.  the  witnesses  with  the  justices 
in  Appendix  H,  no.  10, 


HENRY  II 


business  which  seems  to  have  been  effected  during  the  year  and  a 
half  which  he  now  spent  in  Normandy.  It  is  not  without  signifi- 
cance that  the  roll  of  11 76  remained  the  basis  of  reckoning  fox 
more  than  twenty  years,  and  that  from  this  year  we  begin  to  fol- 
low with  some  clearness  and  continuity  the  judicial  work  of  the 
Norman  Exchequer. 

It  has  indeed  been  maintained  that  the  term  exchequer  does 
not  previously  occur  in  Normandy,  and  hence  that  Richard  is  the 
creator  of  the  institution."*  The  author  of  the  Dialogus,  however, 
who  began  his  treatise  while  Richard  was  in  Normandy,  refers  to 
the  Norman  Exchequer  as  an  ancient  institution,  as  old  perhaps 
as  the  Conqueror, under  whom  we  can  trace  the  regular  ac- 
counting for  the  fann  of  the  vicomtes  which  is  the  essence  of  such 
a  fiscal  system;  and  the  name  scaccarium  occurs  in  11 71  and 
in  a  notice  of  Henry  I's  reign  discovered  by  Round."*  At  what 
epoch  there  was  introduced  the  distinctive  method  of  reckoning 
which  gave  the  Exchequer  its  name,  is  an  even  darker  problem  in 
Normandy  than  in  England.  According  to  an  ingenious  conjec- 
ture of  Poole,'"  the  employment  of  the  abacus  for  balancing  the 
royal  accounts  came  to  England  from  the  schools  of  Laon  in  the 
reign  of  Henry  I.  To  me  the  epoch  of  its  introduction  seems  prob- 
ably earher  and  connected  with  the  abacists  of  Lorraine  in  the 

Valin,  pp.  116-136.  On  Valin's  own  showing  we  can  hardly  imagine  Richard 
creating  the  Exchequer  between  his  arrival  toward  Michaelmas  of  11 76  and  the 
regular  session  of  that  body,  doubtless  also  at  Michaelmas,  mentioned  in  the  Rose! 
charter  of  that  year  (see  the  preceding  note). 

Bk.  i,  c.  4  (Oxford  ed.,  p.  66). 
'"^  Supra,  pp.  40-44;  E.  H.  R.,  xxvi.  328  (1911)  (a  terra  data  under  the  Con- 
queror). For  accounts  which  run  far  back  of  1176  see  Stapleton,  i.  12,  92,  94.  On 
the  administrative  organization  as  the  essence  of  the  Exchequer  cf.  Liebermann, 
E.  H.  R.,  xx\'iii.  153.  For  the  use  of  tallies  under  the  Conqueror  see  Stapleton,  i, 
p.  xxii. 

Delisle,  p.  345;  cf.  E.  H.  R.,  xxvi.  326-328  (1911).  No  reUance  can  be  placed 
on  the  early  mention  of  the  Exchequer  in  a  highly  suspicious  charter  for  Saint- 
fivroul:  Round,  nos.  638,  639;  Delisle,  p.  316;  DeUsle-Berger,  no.  513.  There  is 
an  important  document  from  the  Exchequer,  11 78-1 180  (Round,  no.  11 23),  which 
Vahn  overlooks.  His  misreading  of  '  rotulis  trium  annorum  '  (p.  135)  as  a  single 
roU  covering  three  years  hardly  requires  comment. 

E.  H.  R.,  xiv.  426  (1899);  supra,  Chapter  III,  note  18. 

Poole,  The  Exchequer  in  the  Twelfth  Century,  pp.  42-59. 


176 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


preceding  century ;  but  in  any  case  the  English  evidence  ante- 
dates the  Norman,  and,  although  the  personnel  and  the  language 
of  the  English  Exchequer  were  Norman,  the  process  may  very 
well  have  been,  as  Poole  urges,  "  from  England  to  Normandy,  not 
from  Normandy  to  England." 

The  absence  of  earUer  rolls  deprives  us  of  all  basis  for  fixing  the 
nature  of  Bishop  Richard's  reforms,  which  probably  had  less  to  do 
with  the  mechanism  of  administration  than  with  the  reestabhsh- 
ment  of  order  in  the  finances  through  the  collection  of  back 
accounts  —  arrearages  of  seven,  fifteen,  even  twenty  years  meet 
us  in  the  roll  of  iiSo"^ — the  revision  of  the  farms,  and  the  change 
of  ofi&cials  in  Normandy  and  the  other  continental  dominions 
which  is  recorded  in  1177."^  Whatever  Richard  accompUshed,  he 
did  not  make  the  Norman  Exchequer  a  copy  of  the  EngHsh,  for 
in  1178-1179  the  author  of  the  Dialogue,  who  had  more  than 
once  been  in  Normandy,  tells  us  that  the  two  bodies  differed  "  in 
many  points  and  welhiigh  in  the  most  important." 

What  these  great  differences  were,  apart  from  the  absence  of 
blank  farm  in  Normandy,  it  is  impossible  to  say,  for  we  have  no 
Norman  Dialogue.  The  terms  of  the  Norman  Exchequer  are  the 
same  as  the  English,  Easter  and  Michaelmas;  the  oflBcers  are  like- 
wise called  barons;  the  place  is  fixed  at  Caen,  where  the  principal 
treasury  was."^  One  point  of  divergence  which  appears  from  the 
rolls  is  that  in  Normandy  each  section  begins  with  a  statement  of 

^  See  my  article  on  The  Abacus  and  the  King's  Curia,  E.  E.  R.,  xxvii.  101-106 
(1912).  Norman  clerks  also  were  in  relations  with  the  schools  of  Lorraine:  Orderi- 
cus,  iii.  265. 

^  Stapleton,  i.  12,  92,  94. 

Benedict  of  Peterborough,  i.  198.  The  words  of  Ralph  de  Diceto  (i.  424) 
'  fiscalia  diligenter  recensens  '  need  mean  no  more  than  is  here  suggested.  On  these 
points  I  am  glad  to  find  myself  in  agreement  with  Powicke  (pp.  73-75,  85). 

'  In  plurimis  et  pene  maioribus dissident: '  bk.  i,  c.  4  (p.  66).  Cf.  Liebermann, 
Einleitung  in  den  Dialogus,  p.  in.  For  Richard  Fitz  Neal's  sojourns  in  Normandy 
see  Eyton,  Itinerary,  pp.  112,  190;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  384. 

That  the  principal  treasury  was  at  Caen  as  early  as  1172  is  clear  from  Robert 
of  Torigni's  account  (ii.  297)  of  the  deposit  there  of  the  barons'  returns  of  that  year. 
See  also  Stapleton,  i.  56,  and  another  mention  on  p.  no,  where  (cf.  p.  77;  Rotuli 
Normanniae,  p.  50)  the  treasury  at  Rouen  is  likewise  important.  Treasure  was 
also  kept  at  Falaise  (Stapleton,  i.  39),  which  had  been  a  principal  place  of 
deposit  imder  Henry  I  (Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  200;  Ordericus,  v.  50),  and  at 
Argentan  (Delisle,  p.  334).  See  Chapter  III,  p.  107  ff.  On  the  use  of  castles  for 


HENRY  II 


177 


the  total  amount  due,  whereas  in  the  Pipe  Rolls,  until  8  Richard 
I,  this  can  be  discovered  only  by  computation."®  Variation  in 
nomenclature  is  seen  in  the  Norman  heading  misericordie,  pro- 
missiones,  et  fines,  corresponding  to  the  placita,  conventiones ,  and 
ohlata  of  the  English  record.  The  Norman  rolls  tell  us  next  to 
nothing  respecting  the  royal  judges  and  their  circuits,  while  the 
absence  of  anything  corresponding  to  Danegeld  renders  it  impos- 
sible to  trace  the  members  of  the  curia  by  means  of  amoimts  par- 
doned them.  The  author  of  the  Dialogue  was  perhaps  impressed 
by  the  absence  from  the  Norman  rolls  of  the  capital  headings  and 
other  rubrics  which  he  so  carefully  describes  in  the  EngKsh,  but  so 
far  as  we  can  compare  the  surviving  records  the  '  great  differences ' 
seem  to  have  consisted  in  externals  rather  than  in  essentials. 
Though  the  two  Exchequers  kept  their  transactions  quite  dis- 
tinct,'the  two  sets  of  rolls  rest  upon  the  same  fundamental 
system  of  accounting,"*  the  greater  subdivision  and  local  detail  of 
the  Norman  roll  resulting  from  the  existence  of  a  set  of  govern- 
mental areas  much  more  complex  and  irregular  than  the  English 
shires.  The  older  vicomte  and  prevote  persist  in  spite  of  the  super- 
position of  the  newer  bailliage;  "^  many  of  the  tithes  and  fixed 

the  custody  of  treasure  see  Round's  introduction  to  the  Pipe  Roll  of  28  Henry  II, 
p.  xxiv. 

The  Pipe  RoUs  make  frequent  mention  of  transshipments  of  treasure  from  Eng- 
land to  Normandy  for  the  king's  use  on  the  Continent,  and  there  is  evidence  that  the 
various  treasuries  in  the  empire  were  regarded  'as  parts  of  a  single  system'  (Powicke, 
Loss  of  Normandy,  pp.  347-350).  For  the  year  1 198  Ramsay  {Angevin  Empire,  p. 
372)  has  calculated  that  the  Norman  revenue  was  greater  than  the  English. 
Stapleton,  i,  p.  xi;  Poole,  The  Exchequer  in  the  Twelfth  Century,  p.  130. 
Thus  we  rarely  find  one  Exchequer  crediting  a  payment  made  at  the  other, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  relief  of  Hugh  de  Gournay:  Pipe  Roll  32  Henry  II,  pp.  xxviii, 
60.  For  such  examples  xmder  Henry  I,  see  Chapter  III,  note  103. 

Even  to  the  form  of  the  rolls  and  the  use  of  tallies:  Stapleton,  i,  pp.  ix,  xiii, 
84;  Wace,  ed.  Andresen,  ii,  Une  2012.  Cf.  also  the  parallel  treatment  of  the  crown 
debtors:  Stapleton,  i,  p.  xii;  Powicke,  p.  74.   See,  however,  infra,  note  215. 

In  what  may  be  considered  our  only  contemporary  description  of  the  Norman 
Exchequer  under  Henry  II,  Wace's  account  of  Richard  the  Good  in  his  tower,  we 
read  (ed.  Andresen,  ii,  lines  2009-2012): 

Venir  ad  fait  de  cest  pais 
Tuz  ses  provoz  e  ses  baiUis, 
Ses  gravereins  et  ses  vescuntes; 
Ses  tallies  ot  e  ses  acuntes. 
On  the  whole  subject  of  local  geography,  see  Powicke,  pp.  61-79,  103-119. 


178 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


allowances  go  back  to  the  Conqueror's  time  or  even  earlier; 
and  the  farm,  less  affected  by  terre  date  than  in  England,  seems  to 
have  undergone  little  change  except  in  the  case  of  important  com- 
mercial centers  like  Rouen,  Caen,  and  Dieppe. The  whole  sub- 
structure of  ducal  finance  was  evidently  very  ancient,  and  for 
that  reason  in  Henry's  time  quite  inadequate,  and  the  rolls  show 
clearly  that,  as  in  England,  the  chief  means  for  supplementing  it 
were  found  in  the  administration  of  civil  and  criminal  justice.'^ 
However  interesting  it  might  be  to  follow  out  in  detail  the  points 
of  agreement  and  divergence  in  the  methods  of  the  two  Excheq- 
uers, the  fact  of  primary  importance  is  that,  so  far  as  northern 
Europe  is  concerned,  England  and  Normandy  stand  in  a  group 
by  themselves,  well  in  advance  of  all  their  neighbors  in  the 
development  of  a  money  economy  and  in  the  mechanism  of  fiscal 
administration. 

As  regards  its  functions  as  a  court,  it  has  recently  been  argued 
that  the  Exchequer  of  the  Norman  dukes  was  in  no  sense  a  judicial 
body  and  was  in  no  wise  connected  with  the  later  Echiquier  de 
Normandie.  This  \'iew  is  a  natural  reaction  against  those  writers 
who  approached  the  earHer  institution  with  the  ideas  of  an  age 
when  the  Exchequer  was  known  only  as  a  court,  but  it  assvunes  a 
breach  in  that  continuity  of  law  and  institutions  which  is  in 
general  so  noteworthy  in  passing  from  Ange\in  to  Capetian  Nor- 
mandy, and  it  does  not  fully  realize  the  fluidity  of  the  Anglo- 
Norman  curia  }^  What  we  seem  rather  to  find  is  a  curia  which 
sits  for  fiscal  purposes  at  Caen  and  for  judicial  purposes  at  various 
places  in  the  duchy,  and  which,  when  Philip  Augustus  transfers 
its  fiscal  duties  to  Paris,  retains  its  judicial  fimctions  and  its 
Anglo-Norman  name.  The  chief  thing  to  avoid  in  tracing  its 
history  is  the  projection  back  into  the  Anglo-Norman  period  of 

Supra,  pp.  42-44.  Stipra,  p.  105;  Stapleton,  i.  56,  68,  70. 

122  Cf.  Delisle,  B.  E.  C,  x.  288,  xiii.  108  £f. 

^  Valin,  pp.  137-139,  249-251 ;  the  two  passages  are  not  wholly  consistent.  See, 
contra,  Powicke,  pp.  85,  398. 

On  the  fundamental  identity  of  mria,  Exchequer,  and  assizes,  see  R.  de 
Freville,  ^tude  sur  Vorganisalion  judiciaire  en  Normandie  aux  XII'  el  XIII'  siecles, 
in  Nouvdk  revue  hislorique  de  droit,  191 2,  p.  683. 


HENRY  II 


179 


the  more  fully  organized  Echiquier  which  we  know  from  the 
Grand  Coutumier  and  the  arrets  of  the  thirteenth  century.  From 
the  reigns  of  Henry  II  and  Richard  a  small  but  definite  body  of 
cases  furnishes  conclusive  evidence  of  the  activity  of  the  Excheq- 
uer in  judicial  matters,  and  indicates  that  there  was  no  clear  dis- 
tinction between  its  competence  and  that  of  the  curia  regis}"^^  As 
in  England  in  the  same  period, it  seems  probable  that  the  dif- 
ference was  essentially  one  of  place :  when  the  curia  sat  in  the  Ex- 
chequer chamber  at  Caen,  it  was  said  to  sit  at  the  Exchequer, 
when  it  sat  elsewhere  it  was  called  simply  the  curia.  Certainly  the 
distinction  was  not,  at  least  among  the  higher  ofl&cers,  one  of 
personnel,  for  the  same  men  appear  at  one  time  as  barons,  or 
justices,'"  of  the  Exchequer  and  at  another  as  justices  holding 
assizes  in  various  parts  of  Normandy. 

"5  For  cases  and  transactions  before  the  Exchequer  in  this  period  see  M.  A .  N., 
XV.  198-201;  Delisle,  p.  349;  Valin,  pieces,  nos.  19,  24,  25,  28;  Round,  nos.  309, 
310,  438,  461,  485  (another  version  in  MS.  Lat.  10086,  f.  logv),  509  (also  in  the 
British  Museum,  Add.  Ch.  15289,  no.  2),  517  (original  in  Add.  Ch.  15278;  some 
additional  witnesses  in  the  confirmation  in  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H.  322,  no.  3), 
560,  606  (where  the  witnesses  are  omitted;  original  in  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H. 
6607,  301-303),  608,  1123;  cartulary  of  Fecamp,  f.  25  (letter  of  archbishop  of  Rouen 
to  WLUiam  Fitz  Ralph  and  the  other  barons  of  the  Exchequer  notifying  them  of  the 
settlement  of  a  question  of  presentation  in  the  court  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux); 
Cartulaire  de  Normandie,  f.  68v  {infra,  note  127);  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H. 
5716,  6607  (78-83,  309),  6653  (338-342),  6672  (293-301),  6679  (186-191),  7707; 
Archives  of  the  Ome,  H.  3916  {infra,  Appendbc  H,  no.  11);  and  the  following  pas- 
sage in  Richard's  great  confirmation  of  the  privileges  of  Saint-Etienne:  'Recuperavit 
idem  [abbas  Willelmus,  d.  1179]  super  Robertum  de  Veim  in  curia  H.  regis  patris 
nostri  apud  Cadomum  hereditagium  quod  idem  Robertus  clamabat  in  tenendo 
manerio  de  Veim  et  de  Sancto  Leonardo,  et  super  Robertum  de  Briecuria  ecclesiam 
Sancti  Andree  de  Vilers  de  qua  monachos  violenter  dissaisierat  sed  iuditio  baronum 
qui  erant  ad  scacarium  apud  Cadomum  adiudicata  est  ecclesia  predicta  Sancto 
Stephano  et  restituta  ':  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H.  1836;  cf.  Deville,  Analyse,  p. 
52.  Most  of  these  documents  relate  to  agreements  or  acknowledgments  before  the 
Exchequer,  but  good  examples  of  judicial  proceedings  will  be  found  in  the  last  ex- 
tract; in  VaUn,  nos.  24,  25,  28;  in  Round,  nos.  309,  310,  438  (Delisle-Berger,  no. 
647);  and  in  the  documents  given  in  facsimile  \n  M.  A.  N.,  xv. 

Poole,  The  Exchequer  in  the  Twelfth  Century,  pp.  174-182;  cf.  G.  B.  Adams, 
in  A.  H.  R.,  xviii.  357  (1913). 

'  Hoc  autem  factum  fuit  apud  Cadomum  ad  scacarium  coram  iusticiis  domini 
regis  tempore  Willelmi  filii  Radulfi  senescalli  Normannie  ' :  Cartulaire  de  Normandie, 
f .  68v.  Soalsoin  VaUn,  nos.  19,  24;  Round,  nos.  509,  517.  Barons  of  the  Exchequer 
appear  ia  Valin,  no.  25;  Round,  no.  11 23;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  647. 

See  the  list  of  assizes,  infra,  Appendix  J. 


i8o 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


In  the  sessions  of  the  Exchequer  the  seneschal  naturally  pre- 
sided, accompanied  by  certain  men  who  bear  the  title  of  barons  or 
justices  but  in  the  documents  are  not  always  distinguishable  from 
the  other  barons  and  clerks  in  attendance.  In  a  charter  of  1178- 
1180/29  besides  WilUam  Fitz  Ralph  the  seneschal,  we  find  as 
barons  WiUiam  du  Hommet  the  constable,  Master  Walter  of 
Coutances,  who  had  served  as  clerk  of  the  king's  camera  and 
keeper  of  the  seal  and  was  perhaps  treasurer  of  Normandy,^^" 
Osbert  de  la  Heuse,  constable  of  Cherbourg,  Ranulf  de  Grandval, 
Richard  Giffard,  and  Gilbert  Pipart,  justiciars  of  the  king,  the 
last  two  having  served  as  justices  in  England  and  as  barons  of  the 
Norman  Exchequer  under  Richard  of  Winchester.  Later  we 
find  most  frequently  Haimo  the  butler,  the  justices  William  de  la 
Mare  and  Richard  Silvain,  Jordan  de  la  Lande,  and  certain  clerks, 
of  whom  as  many  as  four  appear  in  one  charter  of  the  period. 
Most  of  these  clerks  are  only  names  to  us,  but  we  can  follow  with 
some  clearness  two  members  of  the  clerical  family  of  Arri,  Roger, 
canon  of  Bayeux  since  the  early  years  of  Henry's  reign  and  a 
regular  witness  in  records  of  the  curia  and  Exchequer  from  11 64 
to  1191,^^^  and  Anquetil,  who  attests  less  frequently  but  receives 
a  Uvery  as  clerk  of  the  Exchequer  as  late  as  1 198 ;  while  another 
type  appears  in  William  Calix,  a  constant  witness  from  the  time 
of  Richard  of  Ilchester,  a  responsible  disbursing  officer  in  the  roll 
of  1 184,  and  a  large  money-lender  on  his  own  account,  forfeiting 

M.  A.  N.,  XXX.  672  (c/.  xix.  66);  Round,  no.  1123. 
"0  Delisle,  pp.  106-113.  The  title  '  thesaurarius  Rothomagensis '  (Delisle, 
p.  loi;  Round,  no.  34)  means  treasurer  of  the  cathedral  (Delisle-Berger,  nos.  510, 
567)  rather  than  royal  treasurer  at  Rouen;  but  Ralph  de  Wanneville,  treasurer  of 
Rouen,  was  also  treasurer  of  Normandy  (Round,  no.  21;  Stapleton,  i.  no),  and  we 
know  that  the  ofi&ce  of  ducal  treasurer  had  been  combined  with  a  canonry  in  the 
cathedral  from  the  time  of  Henry  I  {supra,  p.'iog  f.).  There  are  relations  between 
the  duke  and  the  treasurer  of  Avranches  (Dehsle,  p.  346)  and  the  treasurer  and 
chaplain  of  Bayeux  (A.  H.  R.,  xiv.  471;  Livre  noir,  nos.  13,  138,  271,  275)  which 
may  have  had  some  significance.  For  the  conversion  of  the  plate  of  Rouen  cath- 
edral to  the  uses  of  Henry  II,  see  MS.  Rouen  1405,  p.  18  (Round,  no.  274). 
"1  Delisle,  pp.  376,  428.  ^  Appendix  H,  no.  11. 

Supra,  note  62;  Livre  noir,  nos.  45,  73,  128,  129,  135,  139,  182,  442;  Round, 
nos.  432,  435,  437,  438,  456,  461,  485,  509,  1446,  1447,  1451;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  689; 
the  Exchequer  notices  cited  in  note  125;  and  the  list  of  assizes  in  Appendix  J. 

Stapleton,  i.  145,  225,  ii.  376, 384;  and  the  lists  just  cited.  Cf.  Osmund  d'Arri 
in  assizes  under  Philip  Augustus:  Cariulaire  de  Montmorel,  ed.Dubosc,  nos.  34-36. 


HENRY  II 


i8i 


to  the  crown  at  his  death  a  mass  of  chattels  and  pledges  which 
suggests  on  a  smaller  scale  the  operations  of  that  arch-usurer 
William  Cade.^^^  The  rolls  show  other  ecclesiastics  active  in  the 
business  of  the  Exchequer,  notably  the  king's  chancellor,  Ralph 
de  Wanneville,  later  bishop  of  Lisieux  and  treasurer  of  Nor- 
mandy; but  until  Henry's  faithful  clerks  are  rewarded  with  the 
sees  of  Evreux,  Lisieux,  and  Rouen  toward  the  close  of  the  reign, 
the  higher  clergy  are  less  prominent  in  the  administration  than 
they  were  in  his  earlier  years. '^^ 

Of  those  who  serve  the  king  in  Normandy  many  have  served  or 
will  serve  him  elsewhere;  his  officers  and  treasure  are  passing  to 
and  fro  across  the  Channel;  his  household  is  ever  on  the  march, 
and  some  elements  in  it  are  common  to  the  whole  Plantagenet 
empire;  yet  Normandy  has  also  ofiicers  of  its  own.  Some  are 
clerks,  such  as  the  treasurer, the  subordinates  in  the  Ex- 
chequer,i^°  and  the  chaplains  of  the  great  castles;''*^  some  are 

Round,  no.  517,  and  index;  Stapleton,  i,  pp.  cli,  110,  129,  130,  145,  170,  171, 
183,  194-198,  226,  228,  240,  ii.  375,  379  (the  countess  of  Richmond  as  a  debtor), 
465-469;  and  the  lists  cited  in  note  133. 

On  whom  see  E.  H.  R.,  xxviii.  209-227,  522-527,  730-732. 

Dehsle,  pp.  99-103. 

Yet  Froger,  bishop  of  Seez,  is  said  to  have  been  ordered  by  Alexander  III  to 
give  up  his  bishopric  or  his  place  in  the  royal  administration  {Memoires  de  la  Societe 
d' agriculture  de  Bayeux,  viii.  244) ;  and  Nigel  Wireker  heard  in  Normandy  that 
the  bishops  of  the  English  realm  attend  curia  and  Exchequer  so  assiduously  that 
they  seem  ordained  '  ad  ministerium  fisci '  rather  than  '  ad  mysteria  ecclesie  ' 
(Wright,  Anglo-Latin  Poets,  i.  203). 

The  relation  of  the  treasurer  to  the  chamberlain  on  the  one  hand  and  to  the 
custody  of  local  treasure  on  the  other  is  not  perfectly  clear.  In  the  roUs  of  ii8o  and 
following  the  Norman  treasurer  has  an  assured  income  unconnected  with  service 
in  the  king's  household  and  consisting  of  the  tithes  of  the  vicomtes  of  Fecamp, 
Caux,  Auge,  Lieuvin,  Roumois,  and  the  country  between  Risle  and  Seine,  and  of 
the  great  forests  of  the  Seine  valley,  as  well  as  a  special  endowment  at  Vaudreuil 
(Rotuli  Chartarum,  p.  17;  cf.  Round,  nos.  193,  561).  Certain  of  these  can  be  found 
in  the  possession  of  Henry  I's  treasurer,  and  the  antiquity  and  situation  of  these 
vicomtes  may  point  to  an  even  earher  origin:  supra,  Chapter  III,  note  108.  The 
duke's  chaplain  at  Bayeux  similarly  had  the  tithe  of  the  regards  of  the  forest  of 
Vemai  (Stapleton,  i.  5).  Can  this  have  some  connection  with  a  local  treasury 
{supra,  note  130)  ? 

Supra,  notes  132-135;  and  cf.  the  clerks  who  appear  in  the  roll  of  1180. 
Stapleton,  i.  37  f.,  56-58. 

Ihid.,  i.  5,  90;  Rotuli  Normanniae,  pp.  7,  23;  Rotuli  Chartarum,  pp.  69,  107, 

113- 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


Serjeants,  acting  as  ushers/*^  money-changers,'*'  scribes/^  mar- 
shals,"^ pantlers,'*^  and  larderers ; and  for  local  government 
there  are  the  keepers  of  jails,  parks  and  forests,"*  and  fairs,"' 
as  well  as  the  vicomtes,  prevots,  baillis,  and  constables  upon  whom 
the  whole  system  rested  —  in  all  a  multitude  of  ofl&cials,  compared 
by  Peter  of  Blois  to  an  army  of  locusts, with  the  bureaucratic 
element  rapidly  gaining  on  the  feudal  in  a  way  which  anticipates 
the  gens  du  roi  of  the  thirteenth  century.  Wace,  himself  a  person 
of  some  knowledge  of  the  law,^^'  gives  us  a  picture  of  the  growth  of 
ofi&cialism  and  Utigation  in  his  own  time  in  the  complaints  which 
he  puts  into  the  mouths  of  the  peasants  revolting  in  996  against 
the  prevots,  beadles,  baillis  old  and  new,  who  leave  one  not  an 
hour's  peace  with  their  constant  summons  to  pleas  of  every  sort: 

Tant  i  a  plaintes  e  quereles 
E  custummes  viez  et  nuveles, 
Ne  poent  une  hure  aveir  pais: 
Tute  iur  sunt  sumuns  as  plaiz: 
Plaiz  de  forez,  plaiz  de  moneies, 
Plaiz  de  purprises,  plaiz  de  veies, 
Plaiz  de  bies  faire,  plaiz  de  moutes, 
Plaiz  de  defautes,  plaiz  de  toutes, 
Plaiz  d'  aguaiz,  plaiz  de  graveries, 
Plaiz  de  medlees,  plaiz  de  aies. 
Tant  i  a  prevoz  e  bedeaus 
E  tant  bailiz,  viels  e  nuvels, 
Ne  poent  aveir  pais  une  hure, 
Tantes  choses  lur  mettent  sure 
Dunt  ne  se  poent  derainier. 

Valin,  p.  151,  note  3;  Rotuli  Chartarum,  p.  82;  Eyton,  Court,  Household,  and 
Itinerary  of  Henry  II,  p.  9. 

Delisle-Berger,  nos.  328,  562,  719;  Stapleton,  i.  77;  '  Symon  cambitor  tunc 
prepositus  Andeleii '  in  cartulary  of  Mortemer  (MS.  Lat.  18369),  f.  103  (1168). 

Hereditary  '  scriptor  prepositure  Cadomi '  in  Olim  (ed.  Beugnot),  1.  417. 
"5  Delisle-Berger,  no.  212;  supra,  Chapter  IV,  no.  13. 

DeUsle,  Cartulaire  normand,  no.  14;  supra,  Chapter  III,  p.  117. 

Stapleton,  i.  30,  99,  274,  ii.  471,  572  f.;  B.  E.  C,  xi.  410,  note  14. 

Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  209;  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  171-173,  212.  On  the  Norman 
forests  at  this  period  see  Borrelli  de  Serres,  Recherches  sur  divers  services  publics, 
XIII'  siecle,  pp.  406-417. 

DeUsle,  Henri  II,  pp.  210,  271,  note,  346. 

Ep.  95,  in  Migne,  ccvii.  298.  Tardif,  i^ude  sur  les  sources,  i.  9,  note  4. 

Ed.  Andresen,  ii,  lines  841-855.  Cf.  the  extortionate  serjeant  in  Ires  Ancien 
Coutumier,  c.  64. 


HENRY  II 


Normandy  had  its  full  share  of  the  great  court  days  of  Henry's 
reign,  when  the  king  kept  some  great  feast  amid  his  barons  and 
officials.  Christmas  was  often  spent  in  this  way,  at  Bayeux, 
Bur,'^3  Domfront,  Falaise,  twice  each  at  Cherbourg  and  Argen- 
tan,  thrice  at  Caen.  The  most  splendid  of  these  assemblies  was 
the  Christmas  court  of  1182  at  Caen.  On  this  occasion  Henry's 
barons  were  forbidden  to  hold  courts  of  their  own,  and  they  and 
others  flocked  to  Caen  to  the  number,  we  are  told,  of  more  than  a 
thousand  knights.  The  Young  King  was  there  —  his  last  Christ- 
mas —  and  his  brothers  Richard  and  Geofi'rey,  their  brother-in- 
law,  Henry  the  Lion  of  Saxony,  the  archbishops  of  Dublin  and 
Canterbury,  with  many  bishops  and  abbots.'^  The  feudal  char- 
acter of  such  a  curia  is  illustrated  by  the  episode  of  WiUiam  of 
Tancarville,  summus  ex  Jeudo  regis  camerarius,  who  pushed  his 
way  through  the  crowd  to  assert  his  hereditary  right  to  serve  the 
king  and  princes  and  to  retain  for  himself  the  silver  wash-basins, 
such  as  his  father  had  thus  received  and  placed  in  his  monasteries 
of  Sainte-Barbe  and  Saint-Georges  de  Bocherville;  and  by  the 
decision  of  the  barons  on  the  following  day  that  the  claim 
had  been  sustained  and  the  chamberlain  vindicated  against  the 
accusations  of  the  seneschal  and  others.**^  A  more  modem  touch 
is  given  by  the  '  full  assize '  held  shortly  afterward  by  the  sen- 
eschal, William  Fitz  Ralph,  and  attended  by  barons  and  others 
whose  names  have  reached  us  to  the  number  of  nearly  eighty.'^ 

Throughout  the  administration  of  justice  the  seneschal  is  the 
important  figure.  Something  of  his  enhanced  importance  was 
doubtless  due  to  the  absences  of  Henry  II  and  Richard  and  the 
decline  of  the  personal  justice  of  the  sovereign,  but  something 
must  also  be  ascribed  to  the  personaUty  of  William  Fitz  Ralph, 
who  in  1 1 78  came  fresh  from  his  experience  as  itinerant  justice  in 
England  and  held  the  ofiice  until  his  death  in  1200,  exerting  an 

Cf.  ako  the  Young  King's  court  at  Bur  in  1171,  attended,  among  others,  by 
more  than  no  knights  named  WUUam:  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  31. 

1^  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  117;  Benedict  of  Peterborough,  i.  291. 

156  Walter  Map,  De  Nugis  Curialium,  ed.  James,  pp.  242-246  (ed.  Wright,  pp. 
232-234);  cf.  Round,  King's  Serjeants,  p.  115  f.;  and  for  the  chamberlain's  duties, 
Wace,  lines  1873  ff.,  2322  £f. 

"«  Delisle-Berger,  no.  638;  Valin,  p.  274;  Round,  no.  432. 


184  NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 

influence  upon  Norman  law  which  may  still  be  traced  in  the  Tres 
Ancien  Coutumier }^''  As  the  alter  ego  of  the  king  the  seneschal  was 
the  head  of  the  whole  judicial  system,  and  in  his  sovereign's 
absence  he  alone  could  preside  in  the  judgment  of  those  who  had 
the  privilege  of  appearing  only  before  the  duke  or  his  chief  jus- 
ticiar.We  find  him  holding  court,  not  only  at  Caen,  where  the 
traces  of  his  activity  are  naturally  better  preserved,  but  at  Ar- 
gentan,  Bemai,  Longueville,  Neufchatel,  Saint-Wandrille,  and 
Rouen.  With  him  sit  such  men  as  William  de  la  Mare,  Richard 
Giffard,  Richard  of  Argences,  and  John  d'Eraines,  archdeacon  of 
Seez,  who  also  in  groups  of  two  or  three  hold  assizes  ia  various 
parts  of  Normandy.i^^  With  no  help  from  the  Exchequer  Rolls 
and  only  scattered  references  in  the  charters,  it  is  impossible  to 
define  the  composition  of  these  assizes  or  determine  how  often 
they  were  held.  In  the  documents  the  list  of  justices  is  often  in- 
complete, and  they  are  frequently  indistinguishable  from  the 
other  witnesses;  yet  we  can  identify  many  of  them  with  the 
haillis  and  constables  who  meet  us  in  the  rolls,  and  occasionally  an 
assize  is  held  by  a  group  of  constables  covering  a  considerable  dis- 
trict. According  to  the  custumal  of  1 199-1200,  a  doubtful  witness 
for  our  period,  assizes  are  held  once  or  twice  a  year  in  each 
vicomte  and  are  attended  by  the  ducal  oflacers  within  the  district 
and  by  the  local  lords,  who  are  forbidden  to  hold  their  own  courts 
during  the  session  of  the  assize. Full  rolls  are  kept  of  the  cases 
considered  and  the  names  of  the  jurors,  and  the  clerks  have  also 

Delisle,  pp.  219-220,  481-483;  Tardif,  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  p.  105;  Valin, 
pp.  160-163,  where  the  fines  carried  in  later  Pipe  Rolls  are  wrongly  taken  as  evi- 
dence that  William  was  justice  in  England  after  11 78.  The  Norman  roll  of  1180 
(pp.  56,  57)  shows  that  he  received  pay  for  the  full  year  1179-1180  and  ad- 
ministered justice  in  a  preceding  year. 

For  examples  of  this  privilege  see  Delisle,  pp.  162,  219. 

See  the  list  of  assizes  in  Appendix  J.  Note  the  assize  held  by  the  constables 
in  no.  2. 

1^°  Tres  Ancien  Cotilumier,  cc.  25-29,  36,  37, 44,  55,  56;  Robert  of  Torigni,  u.  117. 
R.  de  FreviUe  has  pointed  out  {Nouvelle  rente  hisiorique  de  droit,  191 2,  pp.  715-724) 
that  the  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier  cannot  be  taken  as  an  unmixed  source  for  the 
judicial  organization  of  the  Plantagenet  period;  its  statements  respecting  law  and 
procedure  are  less  likely  to  have  been  affected  by  French  influence.  The  growing 
importance  of  the  official  element  in  the  administration  of  justice  in  the  twelfth 
century  is  well  brought  out  by  Freville  (p.  682  £f.),  who,  however,  goes  too  far  in 


HENRY  II 


their  little  parchments  to  record  the  various  fines  and  payments. 
The  theory  still  survives  that  all  chattels  of  offenders  are  forfeited 
to  the  duke,  for  "  the  function  of  the  sworn  affeerers  is  to  declare 
what  goods  the  offender  has";^^^  but  there  are  maximum  pay- 
ments for  the  various  classes  of  society,  and  knight  and  peasant 
enjoy  exemption  of  their  arms  and  means  of  Uvehhood  in  a  way 
which  suggests  the  well  known  clause  of  Magna  CartaJ^^  The 
justices  have  a  reputation  for  extortion  on  technical  pretexts,^^* 
and  the  Exchequer  Rolls  show  them  bent  on  upholding  the  dignity 
and  authority  of  their  court  by  fines  for  contradiction  and  foohsh 
speaking,  for  leaving  its  session  without  permission,  and  for  dis- 
regarding or  transgressing  its  decrees. There  are  fines  for  those 
who  go  to  the  ecclesiastical  courts  against  the  justices'  orders; 
and  even  lords  of  the  rank  of  Hugh  de  Longchamp  and  Hugh  de 
Goumay  are  heavily  mulcted  for  neglecting  the  summons  to  the 
regard  of  the  forest.^" 

The  ordinary  local  courts  of  the  vicomte  and  hailli  are  not  men- 
tioned in  the  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier  and  have  left  few  traces  in  the 
charters.  Early  in  the  reign  they  had  been  ordered  to  meet  at 
least  once  a  month  in  the  Avranchin  the  vicomte  held  pleas 
thrice  a  year  in  Ardevon  and  Genest."^  In  Guernsey  in  1179,  the 
court  of  the  vicomte  is  still  curia  regis,  and  he  has  an  ofl&cial  seal.^^" 

excluding  the  non-professional  element,  and  propounds  a  general  theory  which 
inverts  the  real  order  of  development.  His  studies  of  the  meaning  of  the  word 
baron  in  this  period  are  worth  pursuing  further. 

Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  cc.  25,  28,  29,  65. 

Pollock  and  Maitland,  ii.  514. 

Tres  Ancieti  Cmittimier,  cc.  S5,  5(>',  Magna  Carta,  c.  20;  and  on  its  interpreta- 
tion, Tait  and  Pollard,  E.  H.  R.,  xxvii.  720-728,  xxvui.  117. 
Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  c.  65. 

Stapleton,  i.  5,  16,  21,  34,  41,  51,  54,  58,  80,  86,  113,  116. 
Ibid.,  i.  21  ('  quia  ivit  in  curiam  episcopi  contra  defensum  iusticie  '),  47,  102. 
Ihid.,  i.  59,  74.  On  pleas  of  the  forest  see  the  Fecamp  cartulary  (MS.  Rouen 
1207),  f.  36V. 

Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  180.  This  is  also  the  period  prescribed  by  PhUip  Augus- 
tus for  his  baillis  in  1190:  Rigord,  ed.  Delaborde,  p.  100  f. 

DeUsle,  p.  346.  Cf.  the  pleas  held  by  Nigel,  seneschal  of  Mortain:  Stapleton, 
i,  pp.  Ixv,  11;  Delisle,  p.  408. 

'  Actum  est  hoc  in  curia  domini  regis  in  Guenerreio  coram  Gisleberto  de  Hoga 
tunc  vicecomite,  et  quia  sigUlum  non  habebam  sigillo  Gisleberti  de  Hoga  vicecomitis 
consideratione  et  assensu  amicorum  hanc  cartam  sigUlari  constitui ' :  original,  with 
Gilbert's  seal,  printed  in  Historical  MSS.  Commission,  Various  Collections,  iv.  53. 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


Once  the  sole  agent  of  the  duke  in  all  departments  of  local  ad- 
ministration, the  vicomte  saw  his  power  greatly  reduced  by  the 
development  of  the  itinerant  justices,  and  we  have  no  means  of 
knowing  just  what  he  still  retained  imder  the  pleas  which  re- 
mained a  constituent  element  of  his  farm.  The  newer  jurisdictions 
of  the  hailli  and  constable  have  also  to  be  reckoned  with,  and 
there  were  probably  differences  of  local  custom  as  well  as  changes 
in  the  course  of  the  Angevin  period.  Thus  the  pleas  of  the  sword 
regularly  stood  outside  of  the  local  farm  and  fell  naturally  to 
the  itinerant  justices,  yet  in  the  district  of  Falaise  a  charter  of 
Henry  II  specifically  reserves  them  to  the  baillis}''^  The  local 
officers  also  possessed  a  minor  ci\dl  jurisdiction,  as  we  see  from  a 
writ  in  which  Henry  orders  the  constable  and  haillis  of  Cherbourg 
to  do  full  justice  in  a  certain  case  unless  the  land  in  question  be  a 
knight's  fee  or  a  burgage  of  more  than  a  hundred  shillings'  aimual 
value,  in  which  event  the  matter  doubtless  went  to  the  higher 
court.  ^"  In  general,  however,  the  local  writs  are  administrative 

1^  This  is  specifically  stated  for  the  Hiesmois  (see  the  following  note),  for  the 
Lieuvin  {Rotidi  Normanniae,  p.  ii6),  for  the  castle  of  GaUIon  (Delisle,  Cartulaire 
normand,  no.  120),  and  for  the  vicomte  of  BonnevUle  and  the  prevotes  of  Falaise  and 
Domfront  (ibid.,  no.  iii). 

Cartidaire  de  Fontenay-le-Marmion  (ed.  G.  Saige),  no.  i;  Delisle-Berger,  no. 
701;  cf.  Valin,  p.  227.  Later  they  are  held  here  by  the  itmerant  justices:  Rotuli 
Normanniae,  p.  20.  For  the  bailli  of  Rouen  see  Henry's  charter  in  Cheruel,  Histoire 
de  Rouen,  i.  247;  Dehsle-Berger,  no.  526  (on  date,  see  VaUn,  Precis  of  Rouen  Acad- 
emy, 1911,  pp.  9-42). 

1^  '  H.  Dei  gratia  rex  Angl[orum]  et  dux  Norm[annorum]  et  Aquit[anorum]  et 
comes  And[egavensium]  constabulario  et  baillivis  suis  de  Cesarisburgo  salutem.  Pre- 
cipio  vobis  quod  sine  dilatione  plenum  rectum  teneatis  priori  et  canonicis  Sancte 
Marie  de  Voto  iuxta  Cesarisburgum  de  terra  que  fuit  Preisie  apud  Cesarisburgum  et 
de  domo  quam  ipsa  eis  dedit,  quas  WUlehnus  Pichard  et  uxor  Richer'  eis  diffortiant, 
nisi  sit  feodum  lorice  vel  burgagium  quod  valeat  plusquam  .c.  solidos  per  annum. 
Et  nisi  feceritis  iusticia  mea  Xorm[annie]  faciat,  ne  ampUus  inde  clamorem  audiam 
pro  defectu  recti.  T[este]  Hug[one]  Bardulf  dapifero  apud  Bonam  villam.'  Original, 
with  fragment  of  simple  qmue,  in  Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  1963.  Printed  from 
a  poor  copy  by  Bigelow,  History  of  Procedure,  p.  367;  Roimd,  no.  949;  Delisle- 
Berger,  no.  688.  This  writ  is  interesting  further  as  one  of  the  rare  Norman  examples 
of  a  writ  of  right,  approaching  more  nearly  the  type  addressed  in  England  to  the 
lord  (Glanvill,  bk.  xii,  cc.  3,  4)  than  that  addressed  to  the  royal  ofiScer  {ibid.,  bk. 
xii,  cc.  11-20).  It  is  indicative  of  the  lesser  importance  of  the  local  officers  in  Nor- 
mandy that  the  justice  appears  in  the  nisi  feceris  clause,  as  in  this  writ  (cf .  those 
listed  in  note  46),  more  commonly  than  in  similar  writs  in  England. 

A  controversy  concerning  a  mill  is  settled  30  Jime  1175,  '  in  presentia  W.  de 


HENRY  II 


187 


rather  than  judicial/^*  and  throw  no  light  on  the  work  of  the  local 
courts,  which  are  plainly  less  important  than  in  England. 

With  respect  to  the  criminal  jurisdiction  of  the  duke,  we  have  a 
list  of  pleas  of  the  sword  drawn  up  before  1174,"^  elaborated  at 
certain  points  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  Tres  Ancien  Cotdumier,"^ 
and  conlirmed  by  the  fines  recorded  in  the  Exchequer  Rolls  and 
the  cases  reserved  by  Henry  in  his  charters.^'^^  The  enumeration 
includes  murder  and  slaying,  mayhem,  robbery,  arson,  rape,  and 
the  plotted  assault,  offenses  against  the  peace  of  the  house,  the 
plow,  the  duke's  highway  and  the  duke's  court,  against  his  army 
and  his  coinage.  In  large  measure  this  list  goes  back  to  the  Con- 
queror's time,  when  many  of  these  pleas  had  already  been  granted 
to  the  great  immunists,  lay  and  ecclesiastical,  who  stiU  continued 
to  retain  them  under  Henry  II. Barons,  however,  whose  courts 
encroach  on  the  duke's  jurisdiction  must  expect  to  be  fined  by  his 
justices,'"  as  must  those  who  seek  to  settle  such  crimes  out  of 

Huechon  conestabularii  regis  ':  Livre  hlanc  of  Saint-Martin  de  Seez,  f.  13.  Cf.  the 
constable  of  Mortain,  supra,  note  72. 

For  examples  see  Round,  nos.  25,  26,  131,  205-207,  492  (where  the  original 
has  '  Beiesino  '  in  the  address),  939,  1282;  Dehsle,  pp.  164  f.,  179  f.;  supra,  note  46. 

Tres  Ancien  Coitlumier,  c.  70.  For  the  date  see  supra,  note  22. 

Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  cc.  15,  16,  35,  53,  54,  58,  59;  cf.  Pollock  and  Mait- 
land,  ii.  455. 

Round,  nos.  375,  382;  Dehsle,  Carlulaire  tiormand,  no.  16;  id.,  Henri  II, 
no.  495.  The  charter  for  Cormeilles  (Dehsle-Berger,  no.  707;  Round,  no.  420) 
reserves  '  incendiariorum  iusticia  et  invasorum  euntium  et  redeuntium  ad  nostram 
curiam  et  retrobanni  et  auxilio  redemptionis  nostre  et  falsarionim  monete  nostre.' 

Supra,  p.  28  f.;  Appendix  D.  Cf.  Powicke,  p.  80  ff.;  Perrot,  les  cas  royaux, 
pp.  301-315. 

'  Pro  placitis  ensis  iniuste  captis  ':  Stapleton,  i.  21.  '  Pro  duello  latrocinii 
male  servato  in  curia  sua  .  .  .  pro  duello  de  combustione  male  servato  in  curia  sua'  : 
ibid.,  i.  123.  On  the  right  of  barons  to  hold  pleas  of  the  sword  see  Chapter  I,  notes 
103,  104;  Valin,  p.  220 ff.;  Powicke,  pp.  80-88.  That  the  justices  might  sit  in 
franchise  courts  is  seen  from  a  charter  of  John  for  William  of  Briouze  {Rotuli  Nor- 
manniae,  p.  20;  see  Powicke,  E.  H.  R.,  xxii.  18)  and  from  the  following  extract  from 
the  cartulary  of  Savigny  (f .  27V) :  '  Fidelibus  universis  Guillelmus  Avenel  salutem. 
Sciatis  quod  Robertus  pincema  et  Guillelmus  frater  eius  in  presentia  mea  in  curia 
comitis  in  plenaria  assissa  coram  baronibus  domini  regis  concesserunt  monachis 
Savigneii  ...  in  manu  mea  qui  tunc  eram  senescallus  domini  comitis  Moretonii.' 
Cf.  the  justices  in  the  courts  of  the  bishop  of  Lisieux  and  the  count  of  Meulan, 
supra,  notes  58,  loi.  The  baron's  jealousy  of  losing  his  court  is  illustrated  by  the 
following:  '  B.  de  Sancto  Walerico  maiori  et  paribus  communie  Rothomagensis 
salutem  et  magnum  amorem.   Audivi  quod  vos  misistis  in  placitum  Walterum 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


court.'*"  Since  the  early  years  of  the  reign  the  itinerant  justices 
are  proclaiming  outlaws,  in  the  marketplaces/^^  and  men  are  flee- 
ing the  realm  for  murder,  robbery,  and  similar  ofi'enses,  which 
already  bear  the  name  of  felonies,!*^  while  their  chattels  become  a 
large  element  in  the  ducal  revenues.' Nothing  is  said  of  their 
accusation  by  a  jury  of  presentment,  but  we  have  reason  for 
thinking  that  such  juries  were  in  use  after  1159,'^  and  the  chattels 
of  those  who  fail  at  the  ordeal  by  water  are  accoimted  for  in  the 
roll  of  1 180  as  they  are  in  the  Pipe  Rolls  after  the  Assise  of  Claren- 
don.'** The  pleas  of  the  crown  are  viewed  as  a  source  of  income 
analogous  to  the  various  portions  of  the  ducal  demesne;  in  the 
Avranchin,  at  least,  they  are  in  charge  of  a  special  officer,  or 
coroner,  as  early  as  1171.'^ 

In  civil  matters  the  ducal  courts  had  cognizance  of  disputes 
concerning  church  property,  so  far  as  these  did  not  come  under 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction, and  of  such  suits  concerning  land  as 
involved  the  use  of  the  recognition.  From  early  times  the  prop- 

fratrem  meum  de  masura  mea  que  [est]  iuxta  atrium  Beate  Marie  de  Rothomago. 
Unde  non  parum  miror,  cum  non  defecerim  alicui  de  recto  tenendo.  Mando  igitur 
vobis  quod  dimittatis  mihi  curiam  meam  sicut  alii  barones  regis  vel  etiam  minores 
habent,  quia  libenter  quando  requisitus  fuero  rectum  faciam.'  Cartulary  of  the 
chapter  of  Rouen  (MS.  Rouen  1193),  f.  112;  Delisle,  p.  358. 

Stapleton,  i.  25-27,  32;  cf.  p.  51;  Tres  Aiuien  Coulumier,  c.  36. 
Appendix  H,  no.  4.  On  the  importance  of  the  fora  patrie  in  such  cases  see  the 
Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  cc.  36,  37;  cf.  Wace,  ii,  line  334;  Amulf  of  Lisieux,  Ep.  no. 

182  <  Nisi  sint  fugitivi  de  terra  mea  pro  muldro  vel  furto  vel  aUo  scelere  ' :  charter 
of  Henry  for  Fecamp  (1162),  in  Valin,  p.  269;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  221;  Roimd, 
no.  133,  where  a  curious  misreading  of  indicium  makes  the  document  relate  to  a 
court  instead  of  a  fair.  In  another  charter  of  1162  for  Fecamp  we  have  (Delisle- 
Berger,  no.  222) :  '  Habeant  meam  firmam  pacem  in  eundo  morando  redeundo,  nisi 
nominati[m]  calumpniati  fuerint  de  proditione  vel  felonia.' 

^  See  the  catalla  fugitivorum  in  Stapleton,  i.  4,  7,  10-12,  15,  16,  22,  23,  27,  29, 
32-34,  43,  49,  ss,  58,  72,  89,  94;  Delisle,  pp.  335,  339,  340,  343;  and  cf.  Tres  Ancien 
Coutumier,  cc.  36,  37.  In  the  cartulary  of  La  Trinite  de  Caen,  MS.  Lat.  5650,  f. 
84V,  we  read  in  an  inquest  of  this  reign:  '  De  feodo  Rogeri  Terrici  fugitivi  pro 
latrocinio  inquirendum  est  ibidem.' 
Infra,  Chapter  VI;  Appendix  I. 

Stapleton,  i.  62;  and  for  England,  Stubbs,  Benedictus,  ii,  p.  Ixii,  note. 

Delisle,  p.  346;  E.  H.  R.,  xxv.  710  f.,  xxvi.  326  f.  For  mention  of  coroners  in 
England  before  1194,  see  C.  Gross,  Coroners'  Rolls,  pp.  xv-xix. 

Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  c.  53.  Cf.  supra,  p.  172  f.  On  the  prejudice  of  the 
author  of  the  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier  in  favor  of  the  Church,  see  Viollet,  in  Histoire 
liiieraire,  xxxiii.  52-55. 


HENRY  II 


erty  of  churches  and  monasteries  had  been  assimilated  to  the 
duke's  own  demesne  {sicut  res  mea  dominica) ,  and  charters  re- 
peatedly declare  that  particular  establishments  shall  be  impleaded 
only  in  the  king's  court,  in  some  cases  only  before  him  or  his 
principal  justiciar.'^*  The  protection  of  possession  by  the  duke, 
praised  especially  by  the  author  of  the  first  part  of  the  Tres  Ancien 
Coutumier  as  a  defense  of  the  poor  against  the  rich  and  powerful, 
is  secured,  as  in  England,  by  recourse  to  twelve  lawful  men  of  the 
vicinage.  The  possessory  assizes  described  in  this  treatise  cor- 
respond to  the  four  English  assizes,  and  the  Exchequer  Rolls 
furnish  abimdant  evidence  that  they  were  in  current  use  by 
1180.'^°  On  the  other  hand  the  principle  that  no  man  should 
answer  for  the  title  of  his  free  tenement  without  royal  writ  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  so  broadly  recognized  in  Normandy  as  in 
England,  nor  do  we  find  anything  which  bears  the  name  of  the 
grand  assize  but  its  Norman  analogues,  the  hreve  de  stabilia 
and  breve  de  superdemanda,  appear  in  the  early  Exchequer  Roils, 
as  does  also  the  writ  of  right. In  the  few  instances  where  com- 
parison with  Glanvill  is  possible,  the  Norman  writs  seem  to  have 
preserved  their  individuality  of  form,  while  showing  general  agree- 
ment in  substance.  Even  in  the  duke's  court,  the  law  of  Nor- 
mandy has  its  differences  from  the  law  which  is  being  made 
beyond  the  Channel,  nor  can  we  see  that  its  development  shows 
any  dependence  upon  the  law  of  England. 

Brunner,  Schwurgerichle,  p.  238  ff.;  Delisle,  pp.  162,  219. 

Cc.  7,  16-19,  21,  23,  57.  See  Brunner,  c.  15,  who,  however,  points  out  that 
the  Norman  parallel  to  the  assize  ulrum,  the  breve  de  feodo  et  elemositta,  is  a  petitory 
writ. 

E.  g.,  Stapleton,  i.  5,  12,  13,  19,  64,  65,  96;  cf.  114,  115  (1184).   Cf.  Brunner, 

P-  307- 

Brunner,  pp.  410-416. 

Ibid.,  pp.  312-317;  Stapleton,  i.  11,  13,  29;  Delisle,  p.  339;  Tres  Ancien 
Coutumier,  c.  85,  where  Tardif  (p.  Ixxv)  points  out  that  the  appearance  of  the  sene- 
schal's name  in  the  writs  carries  them  back  of  1204,  when  the  oflBce  was  abolished. 

Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  c.  30;  and  the  numerous  payments  in  the  rolls  pro 
redo  habendo.   For  an  example  see  supra,  note  173. 

Cf.  the  order  of  Henry  III  for  the  maintenance  in  the  Channel  Islands  of 
'  assisas  illas  que  ibi  temporibus  antecessorum  nostrorum  regum  AngUe,  videlicet 
H.  avi  nostri,  R.  regis  avunculi  nostri,  et  J.  regis  patris  nostri,  observate  fuerunt': 
Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls,  1216-1225,  p,  136. 


190 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


If  we  ask  what  limitations  existed  upon  the  ducal  authority  in 
Normandy,  the  answer  must  be  that  there  were  none,  beyond  the 
force  of  feudal  custom  and  the  body  of  law  and  precedent  which 
the  ducal  court  was  creating,  and  that  the  only  sanction  of  these 
was  rebellion.  Not  until  13 15,  however,  did  revolt  secure  a  definite 
formulation  of  the  local  rights  and  liberties  of  Normandy  in  the 
Charte  aux  Normands  of  Louis  X;  '■^^  the  scribe  who  sought  to  pass 
off  as  the  work  of  Henry  II  a  version  of  Magna  Carta  as  reissued 
in  1225,  though  he  deceived  older  antiquarians, has  long  since  been 
discredited.'^*^  The  position  of  the  duke  in  Normandy  required  of 
him  none  of  those  chartered  promises  which  are  often  regarded  as 
the  foundations  of  EngUsh  liberty.  Yet  if,  with  Stubbs,^^^  we  are 
to  consider  the  charter  of  Henry  I  and  its  successors  as  an  amplifi- 
cation of  the  coronation  oath,  we  must  not  overlook  the  fact  that 
the  coronation  oath  of  the  dukes,  with  its  threefold  promise  of 
peace,  repression  of  disorder,  and  justice,  is  in  exact  verbal  agree- 
ment with  that  of  the  English  king  as  repeated  since  Anglo-Saxon 
times. When,  however,  we  recall  that  both  in  England  and  in 
Normandy  these  obUgations  were  explained  and  accepted  with 
especial  care  and  ceremony  at  the  accession  of  John,'^^  we  learn  to 
attach  less  significance  to  such  promises.  And  by  the  time  that 
the  Great  Charter  has  declared  the  king  below  the  law,  England 
and  Normandy  have  started  on  separate  paths  of  constitutional 
development. 

In  the  twelfth  century,  however,  the  resemblances  between 
Normandy  and  England  stand  out  the  more  clearly  the  further  we 
explore  and  compare  their  institutions.  There  are  of  course  fun- 
damental differences  in  local  government,  but  the  essential  central 
organs  of  finance  and  judicature  are  similarly  constituted  and  fol- 

Ordonnances  des  Rois,  i.  551,  587.  For  the  revolt  see  Duiayard  in  Revue 
kistorique,  liv,  Iv;  Coville,  Les  etats  de  Normandie,  pp.  32-40. 

196  Delisle,  Henri  II,  pp.  312-316,  who  by  a  slip  gives  1227  as  the  date. 
1"  Select  Charters,  gth  edition,  p.  116.  For  the  opposite  view  see  H.  L.  Cannon, 
A.  H.  R.,  XV.  37-46. 

Compare  the  two  forms  in  the  MS.  of  Rouen  cathedral:  The  Benedictional 
of  Archbishop  Robert,  ed.  H.  A.  Wilson  (Bradshaw  Society,  xxiv),  pp.  140,  158.  On 
the  English  coronation  oath,  see  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History,  i.  163-165;  on  the 
Norman  ceremony,  Valin,  pp.  43-45. 

Stubbs,  i.  553  f.;  Roger  of  Hoveden,  iv.  87  f.;  Magna  Vita  S.  Hugonis,  p.  293  f. 


HENRY  II 


191 


low  similar  methods  of  work.  The  matter  would  be  much  clearer 
were  it  not  for  the  disappearance  of  many  thousands  of  royal  writs 
which  alone  could  reveal  the  daily  routine  of  administration  on 
both  sides  of  the  Channel;  but  Henry  II  had  only  one  chan- 
cery, and  its  methods  show  remarkable  uniformity  in  all  of  his 
various  dominions  and  testify  to  similar  administrative  condi- 
tions throughout.  The  chancery  was  an  extraordinarily  active  and 
effective  mechanism,  and  we  may  well  join  with  DeUsle  in  prais- 
ing its  regularity,  finish,  and  irreproachable  precision,  the  terseness 
and  simplicity  of  its  documents,  their  '  soUd  and  severe  ele- 
gance.' Its  charters  and  writs,  like  Glanvill  and  the  Dialogus, 
tell  the  story  of  a  remarkably  orderly  and  businesslike  govern- 
ment, which  expected  obedience  and  secured  it.  A  parallel  story 
of  order  and  thrift  is  told  in  the  records  of  the  Exchequers,  in  the 
Norman  rolls  quite  as  explicitly  as  in  the  English  Pipe  Rolls.  The 
king's  writ  is  necessary  for  every  new  disbursement;  his  officers 
must  account  for  every  penny  of  cash  and  every  bushel  of  grain ; 
the  '  seller  of  justice  '  must  have  his  fee  or  his  amercement;  the 
land  of  the  ducal  castles  is  farmed  '  up  to  the  very  walls.'  The 
thrifty  detail  of  Henry's  housekeeping  is  further  illustrated  in  the 
inquest  concerning  his  rights  in  the  Avranchin,  the  only  region  for 
which  an  official  statement  has  been  preserved.  Besides  the  an- 
cient farm  of  the  vicomte,  the  king  has  his  monopoly  of  the  fair  of 
Saint  Andrew,  where  even  the  abbot  of  the  Mount  pays  his  due  of 
wax  and  pepper;  he  has  his  custom  of  wine  in  the  '  Valley  '  and 
his  rights  over  the  '  customary  '  houses  of  the  city,  including 
fourpence  from  each,  his  meadows,  and  his  chestnut  grove;  he 
has  recovered  by  inquest  an  oven,  a  bit  of  land  which  yields  ten 
quarters  of  grain,  the  treasurer's  new  house,  and  a  room  which  has 
encroached  on  his  demesne.  The  pleas  of  the  crown  are  also  a  part 
of  the  demesne  and  have  their  special  custodian ,  like  the  fair  and 
the  chestnut  grove ;  his  men  of  the  neighborhood  must  bring  the 
chestnuts  to  the  king  in  Normandy,  and  he  keeps  the  sacks  which 
they  are  obhged  to  furnish  for  this  purpose.^"^  The  sovereign  who 

Delisle,  Henri  II,  pp.  i  f.,  151. 
Powicke,  Loss  of  Normandy,  p.  298. 
^"^  Inquest  of  1171  in  Delisle,  pp.  345-347;  cf.  Appendix  K. 


192 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


saves  chestnut  bags  shows  equal  watchfulness  in  his  own  house- 
hold, wherever  it  journeys:  its  written  ordinances  fix  the  daily- 
allowances  of  bread  and  wine  and  candle  ends,  and  the  master 
marshal  requires  tallies  of  receipt  from  all  its  officers.^"^  The 
miUtary  bookkeeping  is  Ukewise  careful:  the  Norman  returns  of 
service  in  1 172  correspond  to  the  EngHsh  cartae  of  1166,  and  the 
registers  of  military  obligations  extend  to  minute  fractions  of  a 
knight's  fee.  Norman  in  origin,^"^  the  military  system  was  by 
this  time  as  much  at  home  in  England  as  in  Normandy,  and  in 
both  countries  it  offered  convincing  evidence  of  the  Norman 
capacity  for  methodical  and  efi&cient  organization. 

What  more  specific  elements  the  Normans  contributed  to  the 
Anglo-Norman  state  must  remain  in  large  measure  a  matter  of 
speculation.  It  would  be  interesting,  were  it  possible,  to  ascertain 
what,  in  an  institutional  sense,  Normandy  had  given  and  received 
during  a  century  and  a  quarter  of  union  with  England  and  par- 
ticularly during  more  than  a  generation  of  membership  in  the 
Plantagenet  empire.  A  study  of  Normandy  and  England  under 
the  Conqueror  suggests  fields  in  which  Norman  influence  was 
exerted,  while  the  reigns  of  Henry  I  and  Geoffrey  show  the  per- 
sistence and  further  development  of  the  institutions  of  Nor- 
mandy; but  the  process  of  change  under  Henry  II  was  too  rapid 
to  permit  of  definite  conclusions  respecting  the  influence  of  one 
region  or  set  of  institutions  upon  another.  Certainly  the  move- 
ment under  him  was  not  all  in  one  direction.  If  the  two  chief 
figures  in  Norman  administration  in  Henry's  later  years,  Richard 
of  Ilchester  and  William  Fitz  Ralph,  had  served  an  English 
apprenticeship,  there  had  earlier  in  the  reign  been  Norman  pre- 
cedents for  Henry's  EngHsh  legislation.  If  the  English  military 
inquest  of  1166  preceded  the  Norman  returns  of  11 72,  the  Assize 
of  Arms  and  the  ordinance  for  the  Saladin  tithe  were  first  pro- 
mulgated for  the  king's  Continental  dominions.  The  order  of 
these  measures  may  have  been  a  matter  of  chance,  for  to  a  man  of 
Henry's  temperament  it  mattered  httle  where  an  experiment  was 
first  tried,  but  it  was  impossible  to  administer  a  great  empire 
upon  his  system  without  using  the  experience  gained  in  one  region 
See  Chapter  III.  204  gge  Chapter  I. 


HENRY  II  193 

for  the  advantage  of  another.  There  was  wisdom  in  Geoffrey's 
parting  admonition  to  his  son  against  the  transfer  of  customs  and 
institutions  from  one  part  of  his  reahn  to  another,^"^  but  so  long  as 
there  was  a  common  element  in  the  administration  and  frequent 
interchange  of  officers  between  different  regions,  it  could  not  be 
fully  heeded.  A  certain  amount  of  give  and  take  there  must 
inevitably  have  been,  and  now  and  then  it  can  definitely  be  traced. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  there  was  any 
general  assimilation,  which  would  have  been  a  still  greater  impos- 
sibility. Normandy  preserved  and  carried  over  into  the  French 
kingdom  its  individuaUty  of  law  and  character,  and  as  a  model  of 
vigorous  and  centralized  administration  it  seems  to  have  affected 
the  government  of  Philip  Augustus  in  ways  which  are  still  dark  to 
^s.206  When  that  chapter  of  constitutional  history  comes  to  be 
written,  if  it  ever  can  be  written,  it  will  illustrate  from  still  another 
side  the  permanent  importance  of  the  creative  statesmanship  of 
the  Norman  dukes. 

That  creative  work,  so  far  as  we  can  discern,  was  completed 
with  the  death  of  Henry  II.  It  is  true  that  no  one  has  yet  studied 
in  full  detail  the  law  and  government  of  Normandy  under  Richard 
and  John,2°^  and  that  the  materials  are  in  some  respects  more 
abimdant  than  under  their  father.  Richard's  charters  have  not 
been  collected ,2°*  nor  does  his  reign  yield  any  new  types  of  record, 
but  the  Exchequer  Rolls  of  1195  and  1198  are  the  fullest  which 
have  been  preserved,  and  the  first  Norman  customal  probably 
belongs  to  the  year  following  his  death.^"^  Under  John,  as  is  well 

2°*  See  the  quotation  from  John  of  Marmoutier  at  the  end  of  the  preceding 
chapter. 

According  to  Benedict  of  Peterborough,  i.  270,  Philip  Augustus  and  the  count 
of  Flanders  had  early  imitated  the  Assize  of  Arms  (cf.  Guilhiermoz,  Origine  de  la 
noblesse,  p.  227).  Ralph  of  Diceto,  ii.  7  f.,  says  Philip  followed  Henry's  adminis- 
trative policy  on  the  advice  of  his  household.   Cf.  also  supra,  note  168. 

See,  however,  the  discussion  of  military  organization  and  finance  in  Powicke, 
Loss  of  Normandy,  chs.  vii  and  viii. 

SOS  The  copies  collected  by  Achille  DeviUe  are  in  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1244  and  MS. 
Fr.  n.  a.  6 19 1.  A  working  list  of  Richard's  charters  is  given  by  Cartellieri,  Philipp 
II.  August,  ii.  288-301,  iii.  217-233. 

^"^  Tardif,  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  pp.  Ixv-lxxii;  see,  however,  Viollet,  in  His- 
toire  liUeraire,  xxxiii.  47-49.  No  Norman  court  rolls  have  been  preserved  from  this 
period. 


194 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


known,  Normandy  has  its  place  in  the  great  series  of  continuous 
records  which  begin  with  this  reign,  the  charter  rolls,  patent  rolls, 
and  liberate  rolls,  from  which  material  a  separate  set  of  Norman 
rolls  was  also  drawn  off.^^"  At  no  period  are  the  working'^  of 
administration  in  the  Norman  duchy  so  well  known  as  just  before 
its  fall.  At  no  time,  one  is  tempted  to  add,  are  they  so  Uttle  worth 
knowing,  save  for  the  illustrations  they  afford  of  the  government 
of  Henry  II.  What  can  be  seen  only  fragmentarily  or  in  outline  in 
his  reign  is  now  revealed  in  explicit  detail  —  the  work  of  the 
Exchequer  and  camera,  the  activity  of  the  royal  clerks  and  Ser- 
jeants, the  king's  wines  and  the  queen's  furs,  the  royal  prisoners 
and  the  royal  sport,  the  control  over  trade  and  shipping,  the 
strongholds  upon  which  Richard  lavished  his  treasure,  the  loans 
and  exactions  of  John.  The  itinerant  justices  which  had  existed 
since  Henry  I  first  meet  us  by  this  name  under  John ;  the  writs 
presupposed  in  the  earlier  Exchequer  Rolls  can  now  be  read  in  the 
Rotuli  de  contrabrevihus?^  What  they  offer,  however,  is  new 
examples,  not  new  principles :  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  change 
in  the  system  of  Henry  II.  The  mechanism  which  in  England 
"  was  so  strong  that  it  would  do  its  work  though  the  king  was  an 
absentee, "^^^  was  in  Normandy  strong  enough  to  work  though  the 
king  was  present.  Even  John  could  not  destroy  it  or  seriously 
weaken  it.  It  would  be  rash  to  assert  that  the  fifteen  years  of 
Richard  and  John  were  not  in  some  degree  years  of  development 
in  Normandy,  especially  in  the  field  of  law,  but  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  they  were  years  of  innovation.  What  was  strong  and 
permanent  in  Norman  law  and  Norman  govermnent  had  been 
written  in  before.  From  an  institutional  point  of  view,  the  inter- 
est of  these  two  reigns  lies  rather  in  the  transition  from  Angevin 
to  Capetian  administration,  and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  it  is  the 
conditions  anterior  to  1190,  not  those  of  1204,  which  the  inquests 

Rotuli  Charlarunt,  1199-1216  (1837);  Rotuli  Litterarum  Patenlium,  1201- 
1216  (1835);  Rotuli  de  Liberate  ac  de  Misis  et  Praeslitis  regnante  Johanne  (1844); 
Rotuli  Normanniae  in  Turri  Londinensi  asservati  (1835);  all  edited  by  Hardy  for 
the  Record  Commission.  The  last  is  reprinted  in  M.  A.  N.,  xv.  89-136. 
2"  Rotuli  Chartarum,  p.  59;  Rotuli  Normanniae,  pp.  20,  97. 

Rotuli  Normanniae,  pp.  xv,  22-37,  45-98. 

Pollock  and  Maitland,  i.  169. 


HENRY  II 


of  Philip  Augustus  seek  to  establish.^'^  What  the  new  rulers  of 
Normandy  preserved  and  imitated  was  the  work  of  Henry  II  and 
the  state-builders  who  preceded  him.^i* 

To  their  Capetian  successors  the  Norman  rulers  handed  over  a 
type  of  well  organized  and  efl&cient  government  such  as  they  had 
also  developed  in  England.  In  the  fields  of  finance,  judicature, 
and  military  organization  the  modem  features  of  this  state,  as  of 
its  contemporaries  in  Aragon  and  Sicily,  stood  out  in  sharp  relief 
against  the  feudal  background  of  the  twelfth  century.  Like  theirs, 
its  institutions  set  strongly  in  the  direction  of  centralization  and 
royal  authority.  UnHke  them,  it  had  also  an  element  which, 
while  as  yet  royal,  possessed  great  importance  for  the  future  in 
the  development  of  more  popular  institutions,  the  sworn  inquest 
which  was  to  become  the  jury,  the  jury  of  England  and  of  '  king- 
less  commonwealths  beyond  the  seas.'  The  special  interest  of 
the  jury  in  the  history  of  legal  procedure  and  representative 
government  sets  it  apart  for  special  treatment  in  the  following 
chapter. 

See  Delisle,  Cartulaire  normand,  nos.  iii,  120,  124;  H.  F.,  xxiv,  preuves,  nos. 
10,  21,  22,  39,  69. 

H.  Jenkinson's  valuable  paper  on  The  Financial  Records  of  the  Reign  of  King 
John  (in  Magna  Carta  Commemoration  Essays,  1917,  pp.  244-300)  reached  me  too 
late  for  discussion  in  this  chapter.  It  makes  new  suggestions  concerning  the  proc- 
esses of  the  Norman  Exchequer,  touching  upon  the  problems  of  Thomas  Brown 
and  Richard  of  Ilchester,  and  ascribing  noteworthy  administrative  changes  to  the 
reign  of  John. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY^ 

The  Continental  derivation  of  the  institution  of  trial  by  jury  is 
now  generally  accepted  by  scholars.  First  demonstrated  in  1872 
by  Brunner  in  his  masterly  treatise  on  the  origin  of  juries,^  this 
view  has  at  length  triumphed  over  the  natural  disinclination  of 
Englishmen  to  admit  that  the  palladium  of  their  liberties  "  is  in  its 
origin  not  English  but  Prankish,  not  popular  but  royal."  ^  What- 
ever one  may  think  of  the  Scandinavian  analogies,  there  is  now  no 
question  that  the  modem  jury  is  an  outgrowth  of  the  sworn 
inquests  of  neighbors  held  by  command  of  the  Norman  and 
Angevin  kings,  and  that  the  procedure  in  these  inquests  is  in  aU 
essential  respects  the  same  as  that  employed  by  the  Prankish 
rulers  three  centuries  before.  It  is  also  the  accepted  opinion  that 
while  such  inquests  appear  in  England  immediately  after  the  Nor- 
man Conquest,  their  employment  in  lawsuits  remains  exceptional 
until  the  time  of  Henry  II,  when  they  become,  in  certain  cases,  a 
matter  of  right  and  a  part  of  the  settled  law  of  the  land.  From 
this  point  on,  the  course  of  development  is  reasonably  clear;  the 
obscure  stage  in  the  growth  of  the  jury  lies  earlier,  between  the 
close  of  the  ninth  century,  when  '  the  deep  darkness  settles  down  ' 
over  the  Frankish  empire  and  its  law,  and  the  assizes  of  Henry  H. 
Information  concerning  the  law  and  institutions  of  this  interven- 
ing period  must  be  sought  mainly  in  the  charters  of  the  time,  and 

^  Revised  and  expanded  from  A.  B.  R.,  viii.  613-640  (1903). 

^  H.  Brunner,  Die  Enlstehimg  der  Schwurgerichte  (Berlin,  1872).  Bninner's  re- 
sults are  accepted  by  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History,  i.  652  ff.;  PoUock  and  Mait- 
land.  History  of  English  Law,  i.  138  ff.;  J.  B.  Thayer,  Development  of  Trial  by  Jury, 
ch.  ii;  of.  W.  S.  Holdsworth,  History  of  English  Law,  i.  145  f.;  J.  Hatschek,  Englische 
Verfassungsgeschichte  (Munich,  1913),  p.  123  f.  Valin,  Leduc  deNormandie  (1910), 
pp.  194-220,  uses  PoUock  and  Maitland  and  a  few  new  documents,  but  makes  no 
use  of  Brunner  or  of  this  chapter  as  first  published  in  1903.  M.  M.  Bigelow,  The 
Old  Jury,  in  Proceedings  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  xlix.  310-327  (1916), 
deals  with  other  questions.  Vinogradoff,  English  Society  in  the  Eleventh  Century, 
pp.  6-8,  emphasizes  the  Scandinavian  element  in  the  jury  of  presentment. 

^  Pollock  and  Maitland,  i.  142. 

ig6 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


it  is  upon  their  evidence  that  B  runner  based  his  conclusions  as  to 
the  persistence  of  the  Prankish  system  of  inquest  in  Normandy. 
Unforttmately  this  great  historian  of  law  was  obhged  to  confine 
his  investigations  to  the  materials  available  at  Paris,  and  while 
further  research  tends  to  confirm  most  of  the  inferences  which  his 
soimd  historic  sense  drew  from  the  sources  at  his  disposal,  it  also 
shows  the  need  of  utilizing  more  fully  the  documents  preserved  in 
Norman  libraries  and  archives.  For  the  jury,  as  for  other  aspects 
of  Norman  institutions,  these  are  not  abundant,  but  they  enable 
us  to  determine  some  questions  which  Brunner  raised  and  to 
illustrate  more  fully  the  earlier  stages  in  the  development  of  recog- 
nitions. The  most  important  body  of  evidence,  the  cartulary  of 
Bayeux  cathedral  known  as  the  Livre  noir,  is  now  accessible  in 
print,^  though  unfortunately  in  an  edition  marred  by  many  inac- 
curacies of  transcription  and  defects  in  dating  the  documents,  so 
that  its  evidence  can  now  be  subjected  to  careful  analysis  and 
verification. 

*  Antiquus  Cartularius  Ecclesiae  Baiocensis  {Livre  noir),  edited  by  V.  Bourrienne, 
(Societe  de  I'Histoire  de  Normandie,  Rouen  and  Paris,  1902-1903).  Through  the 
courtesy  of  the  abbe  Deslandes  I  had  ample  opportunity  to  examine  the  MS.  at 
the  cathedial  in  1902  and  again  in  1905.  A  defective  analysis  of  the  cartulary  was 
published  by  Lechaude  d'Anisy,  M.  A.  N.,  viii.  435-454,  and  extracts  from  it  are 
in  his  papers  at  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  (MS.  Lat.  10064)  and  in  the  transcripts 
made  by  him  for  the  English  government  and  preserved  at  the  Public  Record  Office 
('  Cartulaire  de  la  Basse  Normandie,'  i.  46-53).  It  would  be  hard  to  find  anything 
more  careless  and  unintelligent  than  this  portion  of  Lechaude's  copies,  which  form 
the  basis  of  the  analyses  in  Round's  Calendar  (no.  1432  fl.).  As  a  specimen  may  be 
cited  his  accoxmt  of  nos.  34  to  42  of  the  cartulary:  "  Suivent  neuf  autres  brefs  du 
meme  roi  Henry  II  qui  n'offrent  maintenant  pas  plus  d'interet  que  les  vingt-six 
precedentes."  As  a  matter  of  fact  only  three  of  these  documents  emanate  from 
Heruy  II,  three  being  of  Henry  I,  one  of  Geoffrey,  one  of  Robert,  earl  of  Gloucester, 
and  one  of  Herbert  Poisson;  while  three  of  the  documents  are  of  decided  impor- 
tance in  relation  to  the  Norman  jury.  Some  use  was  made  of  the  Livre  noir  by 
Stapleton  in  his  edition  of  the  Exchequer  RoUs  and  by  Delisle  in  his  essay  on  Nor- 
man finance  in  the  twelfth  century  {B.  E.  C,  x-xiii).  Brunner  used  Dehsle's  copies, 
from  which  he  published  numerous  extracts  in  his  Schwurgerichle.  Sixteen  of  the 
documents  of  most  importance  for  the  history  of  the  jury  are  printed  from  the  Lon- 
don copies  by  M.  M.  Bigelow  in  the  appendix  to  his  History  of  Procedure  (London, 
1880),  nos.  40-55,  but  without  any  serious  effort  to  determine  questions  of  date  and 
authorship  (of.  Brunner  in  Zeitschrifi  der  Samgny-Stiftung,  Germ.  Abt.,  ii.  207). 

The  other  Bayeux  cartularies  preserved  at  Bayeux  {Livre  noir  de  I'evecke,  MSS. 
206-208)  and  Paris  (MSS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1828,  1925,  1926,  the  last  two  formerly  at 
Cheltenham)  throw  no  further  light  on  the  jury. 


198 


NORMAX  IXSTITUTIOXS 


One  of  the  most  interesting  problems  in  the  histor}'  of  the  ]ury 
is  to  determine  how  and  when  the  procedure  by  recognition 
ceased  to  be  an  exclusive  pri\-ilege  of  the  king  and  became  part  of 
the  regular  system  of  justice.  This  extension  of  the  king's  preroga- 
tive procedure  may  have  been  made  "  bit  by  bit,  now  for  this 
class  of  cases  and  now  for  that," '  but  B runner  believes  it  can  have 
been  accompUshed  only  by  a  definite  royal  act  or  series  of  acts* 
The  jurists  refer  to  the  recognition  as  a  royal  favor,  an  outgrowth 
of  equity,  a  relief  to  the  poor,  while  the  ver\-  name  of  assize  by 
which  the  recognition  came  to  be  knowTi  points  to  the  royal  ordi- 
nance, or  assize,  by  which  it  was  introduced.  The  author  of  this 
ordinance  he  considers  to  have  been  Henr}-  II.  The  whole  ma- 
chinery-of  the  various  assizes  appears  in  well  developed  form  in  the 
treatise  ascribed  to  Glan\Tll  and  written  near  the  close  of  Henrj^'s 
reign,  whereas  none  of  them  has  been  traced  in  England  back  of 
1 164,  when  the  assize  utrion  makes  its  appearance  in  the  Constitu- 
tions of  Clarendon.  A  charter  of  King  John  seems  to  place  the 
introduction  of  recognitions  in  his  father's  reign,  and  one  of 
Henr}-'s  own  writs  refers  to  the  grand  assize  as  '  my  assize.'  The 
Enghsh  assizes  cannot,  then,  be  older  than  Henr\-'s  accession  in 
1 1 54;  they  may  be  somewhat  younger.  WTien  we  turn  to  Nor- 
mandy, we  find  likewise  a  full-grown  system  of  recognitions  ia 
existence  in  the  later  years  of  the  twelfth  century,  as  attested  by 
the  earliest  Norman  customal.the  Tres  Ancien  Coiitumier,  and  the 
niunerous  references  to  recognitions  contained  in  the  Exchequer 
RoUs  of  1 180  and  the  follo\\ing  years.''  Between  these  records  and 
Glan\-ill  there  is  little  to  choose  in  point  of  time,  and  priority 
might  be  claimed  for  England  or  for  Normandy  with  equal 
inconclusi  veness . 

Brunner.  however,  discovered  in  the  Bayeux  cartular}'  three 
documents  which  not  only  antedate  any  mention  of  assizes  so  far 
noted  in  English  sources,  but  also,  he  maintained,  afford  clear 
proof  that  the  regular  estabhshment  of  the  procedure  by  recogni- 
tion was  the  work  of  Henry-  11  as  duke  of  Normandy  before  he 

5  Pollock  and  Maitland,  i.  144. 

'  Ch.  sdv,  "  Die  Einfuhrung  des  oidentlichen  Recogmtionsprocesses." 
'  Supra,  Chapter  V,  note  190. 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


199 


ascended  the  EngKsh  throne.  One  of  these  documents,  issued  in 
the  name  of  Henry  as  king  and  belonging  to  the  year  11 56,  orders 
William  Fitz  John  to  hold  a  recognition,  by  means  of  the  ancient 
men  of  Caen,  with  reference  to  the  rights  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux 
at  Caen,  and  to  do  the  bishop  full  right  according  to  Henry's 
assize  {secundum  assisam  meam).^  The  other  two  writs  run  in  the 
name  of  a  duke  of  Normandy  and  count  of  Anjou  whose  name  is 
left  blank  in  the  cartulary.  One  of  them'  directs  two  of  the  duke's 
justices  to  determine  by  recognition,  secundum  asisiam  meam, 
who  was  seized  of  certain  fiefs  in  the  time  of  Henry  I ;  the  other 
commands  another  justice  to  hold  recognition  throughout  his  dis- 
trict, secundum  assisiam  meam,  concerning  the  fiefs  of  the  bishop 
of  Bayeux,  and  at  the  same  time  threatens  one  of  the  bishop's 
tenants  with  such  a  recognition  unless  he  gives  up  a  knight's  fee 
wrongfully  withheld  from  the  bishop. While  the  author  of  the 
second  and  third  of  these  documents  (nos.  25  and  24)  is  not 
named,  the  style  of  duke  of  Normandy  and  coimt  of  Anjou  was 
used  only  by  Geoffrey  Plantagenet  and  by  Henry  H  between  his 
father's  death  in  1151  and  his  coronation  as  king  in  1154."  That 
the  duke  in  question  was  not  Geoffrey,  B  runner  was  led  to  main- 
tain from  the  recurrence  of  the  phrase  assisa  mea  in  the  writ  of 
Henry  relating  to  Caen;  if  '  my  assize  '  meant  Henry's  assize  in 
the  one  case,  it  must  have  meant  his  assize  in  the  other.^^  Inas- 

'  Livre  noir,  no.  27;  Bigelow,  History  of  Procedure^  p.  393,  no.  48;  La  Rue, 
Essais  historiques  sur  la  ville  de  Caen,  i.  375;  Brunner,  p.  302,  no.  i;  Round,  Calen- 
dar, no.  1443;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  21.  Brunner  places  the  document  between  1156 
and  1159;  the  king's  itinerary  fixes  it  in  October  1156.  For  the  text  and  a  fuller 
discussion  of  this  and  the  two  other  documents  see  below,  pp.  209-214. 

'  Livre  noir,  no.  25;  Bigelow,  p.  393,  no.  47;  Brunner,  p.  302,  no.  2;  Delisle, 
Henri  II,  p.  138,  no.  6 ;  not  in  Roimd. 

1"  Livre  noir,  no.  24;  Bigelow,  p.  392,  no.  46;  Brunner,  p.  302,  no.  3;  Round,  no. 
1439;  Stapleton,  Magni  Rotuli,  i,  p.  xxxiv;  Delisle,  p.  137,  no.  5. 

"  Henry  received  the  duchy  of  Normandy  from  his  father  in  1150  and  became 
count  of  Anjou  on  his  father's  death ,  7  September  1151.  His  marriage  with  Eleanor 
in  May  1152  gave  him  the  additional  title  of  duke  of  Aquitaine,  but  he  did  not  take 
this  style  in  his  charters  until  1 153,  so  that  its  absence  does  not  prove  a  document 
to  be  anterior  to  his  marriage:  see  Delisle,  pp.  120-133.  Nos.  24and  2s,if  of  Henry, 
would  fall  between  1151  and  1153;  Brunner  places  them  between  1150  and  1152. 

'2  Schwurgerichle,  p.  303  and  note,  where  the  sUence  of  no.  39  in  the  Livre  noir  is 
also  urged.  Brunner's  conviction  seems  to  have  been  fortified  by  the  authority  of 
Delisle  (see  Zeitschrifl  der  Savigny-Stiftung,  Germ.  Abt.,  ii.  207),  although  Delisle 


200 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


much  as  the  assize  referred  to  is  obviously  a  general  ordinance 
concerning  the  procedure  by  recognition,  the  introduction  of  this 
form  of  procedure  is  to  be  ascribed  to  its  author,  the  young  duke 
Henry  II. 

Such  is  the  essence  of  B  runner's  argument,  which  hinges  upon 
two  points:  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  assisa  mea,  and  the  author- 
ship of  the  two  anonymous  writs,  nos.  24  and  25.  In  the  matter 
of  authorship  Brunner,  while  confident  of  his  interpretation — ^and 
his  confidence  seems  to  have  grown  into  certitude  after  the  pub- 
Hcation  of  the  Entstehung^^  —  still  admitted  that  a  final  decision 
was  impossible  before  the  rich  treasures  of  the  Livre  noir  should  be 
accessible  in  print.  Now  that  the  published  cartulary  Ues  before 
us,  it  appears  that  while  the  editor  follows  Bnmner  in  ascribing" 
the  critical  documents  to  Henry  II,  he  brings  no  new  evidence  to 
light;  the  name  of  the  duke  does  not  appear  in  the  printed  text. 
Fortunately,  however,  a  close  examination  of  the  manuscript  of 
the  cartulary  reveals  something  more.  Those  familiar  with  the 
habits  of  mediaeval  scribes  are  aware  that  when,  as  here,  the 
initial  letter  was  left  blank  for  the  rubricator,  it  was  usual  to  give 
him  some  indication  of  the  omitted  letter  by  marking  it  lightly 
in  the  blank  space  or  on  the  margin.'*  Now  an  attentive  examina- 
tion of  the  weU  thumbed  margins  of  the  Livre  noir  shows  that  the 
initial  was  clearly  indicated  in  a  contemporary  hand,  and  that  not 
only  in  nos.  24  and  25  but  in  ten  other  documents  left  anonymous 
in  the  edition    the  initial  is  G.  The  author  of  the  writs  in  ques- 

had  formerly  assigned  no.  24  to  Geoffrey  {B.  E.  C,  x.  260,  note  2)  and  in  his  last 
work  {Henri  II,  p.  137  f.)  comes  out  decisively  for  Geoffrey's  authorship.  Round, 
who  does  not  calendar  no.  25,  ascribes  no.  24  to  Geoffrey  {Calendar,  no.  1439). 

In  1896  in  a  review  of  Pollock  and  Maitland  he  says:  "  Nach  Lage  der  Urkim- 
den  des  Liber  niger  capituli  Baiocensis  ist  es  zweifeUos,  dass  die  Einfiihrung  der 
Recognitionen  in  der  Normandie  1150-1152  stattfand."  Zeilschrifl  der  Savigny- 
Sliftung,  Germ.  Abt.,  xvii.  128.  Cf.  ibid.,  ii.  207;  Holtzendorff,  Encyclopadie  der 
Recktswissensckaft,  edition  of  1890,  p.  325;  Political  Science  Quarterly,  xi.  537; 
Brunner,  Geschichle  der  englischet;  Rechtsgttellen  (1909),  p.  65. 
"  Where  they  have  often  been  cut  off  in  binding. 

Nos.  16,  17,  18,  19,  39,  43,  44,  89,  90,  100.  Throughout  the  cartulary  the 
initial  letter  of  charters  is  again  and  again  indicated  in  this  way,  only  in  most  of  the 
other  cases  the  rest  of  the  first  word  was  written  out  in  the  text,  so  that  the  missing 
letter  could  readily  be  supphed  without  recourse  to  the  margin.  The  charters  of 
Henry  II  regularly  (no.  436  seems  to  be  the  only  exception)  have  something  more 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


201 


tion  was  accordingly  not  Henry,  but  his  father  Geoffrey.  '  My 
assize  '  was  Geoffrey's  assize  in  the  first  instance,  even  if  the  ex- 
pression was  later  adopted  by  Henry;  and  if  Bruimer's  contention 
is  sound  as  to  the  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the  phrase,  it  was 
Geoffrey  Plantagenet  who  first  estabhshed  the  recognition  as  a 
regular  form  of  procedure  in  Normandy.  In  continuing  the  em- 
ployment of  this  procedure  in  Normandy  and  in  extending  it  to 
England  Henry  II  was  simply  carrying  out  the  poHcy  begun  by 
his  father.  This  conclusion  necessarily  follows  if  we  accept  Brun- 
ner's  premises,  but  one  of  them,  the  phrase  assisa  mea,  requires 
further  investigation.  Before  undertaking,  however,  to  analyze 
in  detail  the  writs  in  which  this  expression  is  found,  it  is  necessary 
to  place  them  in  their  proper  setting  by  tracing  the  history  of  the 
Htigation  concerning  the  rights  and  possessions  of  the  bishop  of 
Bayeux  and  by  examining,  as  carefuUy  as  the  material  at  hand 
permits,  the  procedure  employed  in  the  bishop's  behalf. 

The  see  of  Bayeux,  which  had  occupied  a  position  of  wealth 
and  importance  in  the  eleventh  century,  especially  in  the  days  of 
Bishop  Odo,  the  famous  half-brother  of  William  the  Conqueror, 
suffered  serious  losses  from  the  weakness  and  neglect  of  Odo's 
immediate  successors,  Thorold  and  Richard  Fitz  Samson.'^  After 
Richard's  death  in  Easter  week,  1133,"  "in  order  that  the  church 

of  the  duke's  name  than  the  initial.  In  all  the  charters  of  Geoffrey,  as  well  as  in 
many  others,  there  is  also  a  marginal '  sic  '  in  what  appears  to  be  a  somewhat  later 
hand, evidently  that  of  a  mediaeval  collator.  In  the  Livre  rouge  (MS.Lat.  n.  a.  1828, 
f.  154)  no.  17  of  the  Livre  noir  likewise  appears  with  the  initial  G  indicated,  this 
time  in  the  blank  space  itself. 

M.  Henri  Omont,  head  of  the  department  of  manuscripts  of  the  Bibliotheque 
Nationale,  who  happened  to  visit  the  chapter  library  just  as  I  had  finished  examin- 
ing the  manuscript  of  the  Livre  noir  in  August  1902,  had  the  kindness  to  verify  my 
reading  of  the  marginal  initials.  So  now  DeUsle,  Henri  II,  p.  137,  supplemented 
by  Berger,  i.  3.  In  the  corrections  at  the  end  of  the  second  volume  of  his  edition 
(1903)  Bourrienne  ascribes  nos.  16-19,  24,  25,89,  and  90  to  Geoffrey,  but  without 
giving  any  reason  for  changing  his  opinion  and  without  referring  to  the  marginal 
initials,  to  which  the  archivist  had  called  his  attention  after  my  visit.  The  same 
silence  is  observed  in  his  articles  in  the  Revue  catkolique,  xix  (1909),  in  which  con- 
siderable use  is  made  of  the  article  in  A.  H.  R.,  viii.  Valin,  p.  209  f .,  overlooks  these 
corrections  as  weU  as  my  readings. 

On  the  history  of  the  possessions  of  the  see  cf .  Bourrienne's  introduction  to  his 
edition  of  the  Livre  noir,  p.  xxxiii  ff.;  and  his  articles  on  Philip  d'Harcourt  in  the 
Revue  cathoUque,  xix  ff.  "  Ordericus  Vitalis,  v.  31. 


202 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


of  Bayeux  might  not  be  utterly  ruined,"  Henry  I  ordered  an  in- 
quest to  be  held,  on  the  oath  of  ancient  men  who  knew  the  facts, 
to  ascertain  the  holdings  of  the  church  as  they  had  existed  in 
Odo's  time,  with  respect  both  to  the  demesne  and  to  the  fiefs  of 
knights,  vavassors,  and  rustics.  Accordingly  "all  these  were 
sworn  and  recognized  and  by  the  king's  command  restored  to  the 
said  church,"  which  was  confirmed  in  its  possessions  by  a  royal 
charter.'*  The  writ  directing  this  inquest,  the  record  of  the  returns 
from  the  bishop's  demesne,'^  and  the  confirmatory  charter  are 
referred  to  in  documents  of  Geoffrey  and  Henry  II,  but  they  have 
not  come  down  to  us.  Fortunately,  however,  the  returns  of  the 
inquest  relating  to  military  tenures  have  been  preserved  and  give 
an  idea  of  the  procedure  employed.  The  recognition  was  held 
before  the  king's  son,  Robert,  earl  of  Gloucester,  sent  to  Bayeux 
for  this  purpose  immediately  after  the  death  of  Bishop  Richard. 
Twelve  ^°  men  were  chosen,  and  sworn  to  tell  the  truth  concerning 
the  fiefs  and  services ;  and  their  returns,  besides  stating  the  military 
obligations  of  the  bishop  and  the  customary  reliefs  and  aids  due 
him,  cover  in  detail  the  holdings  and  services  of  his  knights  and 
vavassors,  beginning  with  the  principal  tenant,  Earl  Robert  him- 
self, whose  statement  is  incorporated  verbally  into  their  report.^^ 

1'  'Ne  funditus  ecclesia  predicta  destrueretur,  provide  Henricus  rex,  avnis  meus, 
instituit  ut  iuramento  antiquorum  hominum  qui  rem  norant  recognoscerentur 
tenedure  iam  dicta  ecclesie  sicut  fuerant  in  tempore  predicti  Odonis,  tarn  in  domini- 
cis  quam  in  feodis  militum,  vavassorum,  et  rusticorum.  Ipsius  equidem  tempore  hec 
omnia  iurata  sunt  et  recognita  et  sepe  dicte  ecclesie  precepto  eius  resignata  et 
mimimine  carthe  sue,quocumque  modo  a  possessione  ecclesie  alienata  essent,reddita 
sunt  et  confirmata.'  Writ  of  Henry  II,  Livre  noir,  no.  14;  Brunner,  p.  264;  Bige- 
low,  p.  389;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  33*.  The  inquest  of  Henry  I  is  also  mentioned 
in  a  bull  of  Lucius  II  (Lhre  noir,  no.  206)  and  in  a  later  writ  of  Henr>'  II  {ibid.,  no. 
32).  The  date  is  fixed  by  a  document  of  Geoffrey  {ibid.,  no.  39):  'post  mortem 
Ricardi  episcopi,  filii  Sansonis.' 

1'  '  Recognitum  est  sicut  continebatur  in  scripto  quod  factum  fuerat  secimdum 
iuramentum  quod  rex  Henricus  antea  fieri  preceperat.'  Livre  noir,  no.  39;  Bigelow, 
p.  395.  That  this  scriptum  was  not  the  same  as  the  carta  seems  probable  from  the 
different  word  used  and  from  the  preservation  of  a  separate  record  of  the  military 
tenures. 

Only  eleven  are  given  in  the  returns,  but  twelve  are  named  in  the  Red  Book 
of  the  Exchequer,  the  name  of  Helto  the  constable  having  been  omitted  from  the 
Bayeux  text. 

^  The  document  was  first  published  by  Lechaud^  from  a  private  copy  (now  MS. 
Lat.  10064,    3)  made  from  a  register  formerly  in  the  episcopal  archives:  M.  A.  N., 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


203 


How  much  was  accomplished  by  these  proceedings  toward  the 
recovery  of  the  bishop's  rights,  we  have  no  means  of  knowing. 
That  they  were  for  a  time  more  carefully  observed  may  perhaps  be 
inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  profits  of  the  see  would  naturally 
fall  to  the  king  during  the  interval  of  two  years  which  elapsed 
before  Henry's  nominee  to  the  vacant  see  could  be  consecrated,^" 
and  that  during  this  period  the  king  remained  in  Normandy. 
However,  the  new  bishop,  Richard  of  Kent,  was  a  son  of  Robert, 
earl  of  Gloucester,  and  in  the  stormy  times  that  followed  the  see 
seems  to  have  been  at  the  mercy  of  his  father,  who  soon  succeeded 
in  usurping  the  greater  part  of  its  property.^*  The  reestabUsh- 
ment  of  the  bishop's  fortunes  was  the  work  of  Richard's  succes- 
sor, Philip  d'Harcourt,  bishop  from  1142  to  1163,  within  whose 
episcopate  the  evidence  of  value  for  the  early  history  of  the  Nor- 
man jury  is  chiefly  found.  '  Wise  in  the  wisdom  of  this  world 
which  is  foolishness  with  God,'  as  the  contemporary  abbot  of 
Mont-Saint-Michel  describes  him,^^  Philip  seems  to  have  begun 
his  arduous  struggle  for  the  recovery  of  his  possessions  imme- 
diately upon  his  accession,  and  to  have  sought  from  the  beginning 
the  support  of  the  papacy.  When  his  sentences  of  excommunica- 
tion proved  ineffective  in  spite  of  papal  sanctions, he  made  in 
1 144  the  first  of  a  number  of  journeys  to  Rome,^^  and  16  May  of 

viii.  425-431 ;  also  in  Beziers,  Memoires  pour  servir  d  Vital  historique  et  geographique 
du  diocese  de  Bayeux,  i.  142;  and  in  H.  F.,  xxiii.  699-702,  which  furnishes  the  best 
text.  These  returns  are  also  found  in  Lechaude's  copies  in  the  Public  Record  Office 
('  Cartulaire  de  la  Basse  Normandie,'  i.  53),  but  are  not  mentioned  in  Round's 
Calendar.  Upon  them  is  based  the  summary  of  ser\dces  due  from  the  bishop  of 
Bayeux  contained  in  the  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer  (ed.  Hall,  pp.  645-647;  H.  F., 
xxiii.  699).  On  the  importance  of  these  returns  for  feudal  tenure,  see  Chapter  I, 
supra. 

^  Ordericus,  v.  31,  45.         23  gee  Appendix  G.  Liwe  noir,  no.  190. 

Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  344.  Cf.  also  H.  F.,  xiv.  503;  and  the  Epistolae  of  Arnulf 
of  Lisieux  (Migne,  cci) ,  no.  6.  The  various  possessions  recovered  by  Philip's  efforts 
are  enumerated  in  a  bull  of  Eugene  III  of  3  February  1153,  Livre  noir,  no.  156. 

Bull  of  Innocent  II,  i8  June  1143  (probably),  ibid.,  no.  195;  buU  of  Celestine 
II,  9  January  1144,  ibid.,  no.  179. 

He  appears  in  the  Pope's  presence  three  times  under  Eugene  III,  in  1145 
(ibid.,  no.  173),  in  1146  {ibid.,  no.  207),  and  in  1153  {ibid.,  no.  200).  His  presence 
at  Rome  when  the  bulls  were  obtained  from  Lucius  II  is  also  attested  by  a  bull  of 
15  May,  in  which  he  appears  as  a  witness:  Martene  and  Durand,  Thesaurus,  iii. 
887;  Jaffe-Lowenfeld,  Regesta,  no.  8609. 


204 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


that  year  obtained  from  Pope  Lucius  II  three  important  bulls 
which  mark  a  turn  in  the  fortunes  of  the  church  of  Bayeux.  One, 
addressed  to  Philip  himself,  enumerated  and  confirmed  the 
ancient  privileges  and  possessions  of  the  see. 2*  The  second  com- 
manded the  clergy  and  people  of  the  diocese  to  render  due 
obedience  to  the  bishop,  and,  after  annvdling  all  grants  and  sales 
of  church  property  made  since  the  time  of  Bishop  Odo,  ordered 
its  restitution  to  the  church  of  Bayeux  on  the  tenure  by  which  it 
should  be  proved,  on  the  oath  of  lawful  witnesses,  to  have  been 
held  in  Odo's  time.^^  The  third  bull  was  addressed  to  Geoffrey, 
covmt  of  Anjou,  who  had  just  succeeded  in  making  himself  master 
of  Normandy,  and  directed  him  to  cause  the  possessions  of  the  see 
of  Bayeux  to  be  declared  by  the  sworn  statement  of  lawful  men 
of  the  region,  in  the  same  manner  as  they  had  been  recognized  in 
the  time  of  his  father-in-law,  Henry  I.^°  These  bulls  were  re- 
issued in  March  1145^^  by  the  successor  of  Lucius,  Eugene  III, 
who  also  rebuked  the  encroachments  of  various  monasteries  and 
individuals  upon  the  rights  of  the  bishop  but  from  this  point  on 
we  need  concern  ourselves  no  longer  with  the  acts  of  the  popes, 
but  can  turn  our  attention  to  the  machinery  of  secular  justice 
which  they  seem  to  have  set  in  motion. 

For  a  study  of  the  recognitions  held  concerning  the  lands  of  the 
bishop  of  Bayeux  imder  Duke  Geoffrey  the  evidence  in  the  Livre 
noir  consists  of  ten  documents  emanating  from  Geoffrey  or  his 
justices,^^  and  a  number  of  references  to  these  and  to  others  made 
in  docimients  of  Henry  II.'*  The  inquests  to  which  these  writs 

Livre  noir,  no.  154. 

Ibid.,  no.  157;  Jaffe-Lowenfeld,  no.  8612. 
Livre  noir,  no.  206. 

Only  the  reissues  of  the  first  two  have  come  down  to  us  {ibid.,  nos.  155,  173), 
but  it  is  implied  in  no.  39  that  the  bull  to  Geoffrey  was  likewise  repeated. 

^  Ibid.,  nos.  190,  159  (the  Pope's  itinerary'  makes  it  clear  that  these  are  of 
1145);  186,  199  (these  two  may  be  of  either  1145  or  1146);  198  (clearly  of  1146); 
191  (of  1147  —  cf.  the  Pope's  itinerarj'  and  no.  41);  and  192. 

^  Nos.  16,  17,  ig,  24,  25,  39,  43,  44,  89,  90.  Bigelow,  History  of  Procedure r 
p.  390 £f.,  nos.  43-47,  51-55.  Cf.  Brunner,  Schu-urgerichle,  pp.  265  ff.,  302.  The  first 
letter  of  each  of  these  is  in  blank  in  the  cartulary,  but  in  every  case  G  appears 
on  the  margin. 

Nos.  9,  12,  14,  32,  36;  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  33*,  13,  14,  72,  228.  Of  these  only 
nos.  14  and  32  of  the  Livre  noir  are  in  Bigelow  (nos.  42  and  49). 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


205 


and  charters  relate  are  of  course  subsequent  to  the  conquest  of 
Normandy  by  Geoffrey  in  1 144  and  anterior  to  his  relinquishment 
of  the  duchy  to  his  son  Henry  in  1150/^  and  it  is  altogether  likely 
that  they  fall  after  the  bulls  of  Eugene  III  of  March  1145.^^  The 
documents  are  issued  at  various  places  —  Rouen,  Le  Mans, 
Bayeux  —  and  witnessed  by  various  of  the  duke's  followers,  but 
none  of  them  are  dated,  and  our  knowledge  of  the  itineraries  of 
Geoffrey  and  his  justices  is  not  sufficient  to  permit  of  drawing 
close  chronological  Umits.  It  is,  however,  probable  that  the  proc- 
ess of  recovering  the  bishop's  possessions  began  soon  after  the 
papal  bulls  were  received,  and  there  is  some  reason  for  placing  at 
least  two  of  the  documents  before  the  summer  of  1147.^^  Clearly 
the  material  which  has  reached  us  from  these  inquests  is  only  a 
portion  of  what  once  existed,  but  it  illustrates  the  different  stages 
in  the  process  of  recognition  and  gives  a  fair  idea  of  the  procedure 
employed.  Apart  from  the  general  order  to  try  by  sworn  inquest 
all  disputes  which  might  arise  concerning  the  bishop's  fiefs,^*  a 
docimient  to  which  we  shall  return  later,  the  duke  must  have  pro- 
vided for  a  general  recognition  of  the  rights  and  possessions  of  the 
see,  similar  to  the  one  which  had  been  held  imder  Henry  I  and  to 
that  which  was  afterward  ordered  by  Henry  11.^^   This  was 

For  these  dates  see  Chapter  IV,  supra. 

'  Predictorum  patrum  nostrorum  Lucii  pape  et  Eugenii  litteris  commoniti ' : 
Livre  noir,  no.  39. 

^  Galeran,  count  of  Meulan,  who  appears  as  witness  in  no.  16  and  as  the  justice 
who  makes  the  return  in  no.  89,  took  the  cross  at  Vezelay  in  1146  and  followed 
Louis  VII  on  the  second  crusade  (Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  241 ;  Chronicon  Valassense, 
ed.  Sonunerdl,  Rouen,  1868,  pp.  7-9),  so  that  he  was  away  from  Normandy  from 
the  summer  of  1147  until  11 49  or  thereabouts.  The  bulls  of  Eugene  III  and  other 
docimients  in  the  Livre  noir  indicate  that  the  active  period  in  the  recovery  of  the 
bishop's  rights  lies  between  1145  and  1147.  See  nos.  159,  189,  190,  199,  186,  207, 
198,  191,  192  for  the  papal  buUs,  and  for  the  other  documents  nos.  41,  52,  100-104. 

C.  Port,  in  his  Diclionnaire  hislorique  de  Maine-et- Loire,  ii.  255,  says  that  Geof- 
frey himself  went  on  the  crusade  in  1147,  but  I  have  found  no  authority  for  the 
statement.  Geoffrey  issued  a  charter  for  Mortemer  at  Rouen,  11  October  1147, 
whereas  the  crusaders  started  in  June:  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  des  Antiquaires  de 
Normandie,  xiii.  115,  no.  2;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  1405;  supra,  p.  134. 
Livre  noir,  no.  16. 

"  The  order  of  Geoffrey  for  a  general  recognition  has  not  been  preserved,  but 
is  clearly  presupposed  in  his  charter  describing  the  results  of  the  inquests  (no. 
39)  and  in  the  similar  order  of  Henry  II  (no.  14). 


2o6 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


supplemented,  at  least  in  some  cases,  by  special  writs  issued  to 
individual  justices  and  relating  to  particular  estates.^"  After 
holding  the  local  inquest  each  justice  made  a  written  return 
to  the  duke,*'  and  the  results  were  finally  embodied  in  ducal 
charters. 

The  course  of  procedure  can  be  followed  most  clearly  in  the 
various  docvunents  relating  to  the  rights  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux 
in  the  banlieue  of  Cambremer,  a  privileged  portion  of  an  enclave 
of  his  diocese  l}ing  ■nithin  the  hmits  of  the  diocese  of  Lisieux.*' 
The  duke  issued  a  writ  to  Reginald  of  Saint- Valery,  Robert  de 
Neufbourg,  and  all  his  justices  of  Normandy,  ordering  them  to 
hold  a  recognition  on  the  oath  of  good  men  of  the  \'icinage  con- 
cerning the  Umits  of  the  banlieue,  its  customs,  forfeitures,  and 
warren,  and  to  put  Bishop  PhQip  in  such  possession  of  them  as  his 
predecessors  had  enjoyed  under  William  the  Conqueror  and 
Henry  The  inquest  was  held  by  the  duke's  justices,  Robert 
de  Neufbourg  and  Robert  de  Courcy,  in  the  church  of  Saint- 
Gervais  at  Falaise.  The  jurors  were  chosen  from  the  old  and 
lawful  men  residing  within  the  district  in  question,  some  of 
whom  had  been  ofiicers  (serdentes)  of  the  banlieue  in  the  time  of 
Bang  Henry,  and  care  was  taken  to  summon  a  larger  number  than 
the  justices  ordinarily  called,  eighteen  in  all,  and  to  see  that 
they  represented  the  lands  of  different  barons.  On  the  basis  of 
what  they  had  heard  and  seen  and  knew  the  recognitors  swore  to 
the  boundaries  of  the  banlieue  and  to  the  bishop's  tolls,  fines, 
warren,  and  rights  of  justice.  The  justices  then  drew  up  returns 
addressed  to  the  duke,  stating  the  verdict  found  and  the  names  of 
the  jurors,*^  and  on  the  basis  of  these  the  duke  issued  a  charter 

Nos.  1 7,  24,  25.  Similar  writs  are  presupposed  in  nos.  89  and  90  and  in  no.  36. 
*i  Nos.  43,  44,  89,  90. 

*^  Nos.  39  (cf.  nos.  9,  12,  32),  19  (cf.  18);  reference  to  such  a  charter  in  no.  36. 
^  On  the  banlieue  {leiigata)  in  Normandy  see  supra,  p.  49.    On  the  enclave  of 
Cambremer,  Beziers,  Memoires  sur  le  diocese  de  Bayeux,  i.  28,  iii.  152. 
**  Livre  noir,  no.  17;  Litre  rouge,  no.  401. 

Eighteen,  according  to  the  return  of  Robert  de  Neufbourg,  but  only  seventeen 
names  appear  in  the  lists. 

Nos.  43,  44  (cf.  32).  There  are  some  differences  in  the  two  returns:  Bour- 
rienne,  in  Revue  catholique,  six.  269  f.  Each  of  these  returns  is  in  the  name  of  both 
justices,  but  in  one  case  the  name  of  Robert  de  Neufbouig,  and  in  the  other  that  of 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY  207 

embodying  the  results  of  the  recognition.*^  The  inquest  concern- 
ing the  other  manors  of  the  bishop  was  held  in  the  choir  of  the 
cathedral  at  Bayeux  by  Richard  de  la  Haie,  Robert  de  Neufbourg, 
Robert  de  Courcy,  and  Enjuger  de  Bohun,  specially  deputed  by 
the  duke  for  this  purpose.  The  evidence  of  the  recognitors,  com- 
prising several  ancient  and  lawful  men  from  each  manor,  was 
found  to  be  in  entire  agreement  with  the  written  returns  of  the 
inquest  held  under  Henry  I,  and  a  statement  to  this  effect  was 
embodied  in  a  charter  of  the  duke,  which  further  specified  as 
belonging  to  the  bishop's  demesne  the  estates  of  Carcagny  and 
Vouilly,  the  fosse  of  Luchon,  and  "  the  Marsh  and  its  herbage, 
including  the  reeds  and  rushes."*^  A  special  charter  was  also 
issued  for  Carcagny  and  Vouilly.*^  The  bishop's  forests  were  like- 
wise the  object  of  an  inquest,  but  the  writ  and  charter  issued  in 
this  case,  though  cited  by  Henry  H,^"  have  not  come  down  to  us. 

It  will  be  observed  that  all  the  documents  so  far  examined  re- 
late to  the  bishop's  demesne,  and  that,  while  the  preservation  of  a 
larger  body  of  material  from  Geoffrey's  time  enables  us  to  see 
more  clearly  the  different  stages  in  the  process  of  recognition, 
there  is  no  indication  that  the  procedure  differs  in  any  way  from 
the  practice  of  Henry  I's  reign,  which  it  professes  to  follow.  In- 
deed, so  long  as  the  subject-matter  of  the  inquest  is  the  bishop's 
demesne,  it  is  not  likely  that  there  will  be  much  advance  in  the 
direction  of  the  trial  jury;  except  that  the  rights  in  question  are 
claimed  for  the  bishop  instead  of  for  the  king  or  duke,  such  recog- 
nitions as  have  been  described  show  no  significant  difference  from 
a  fiscal  inquest,  such,  for  example,  as  the  Domesday  survey.  The 
appUcation  of  the  inquest  to  the  feudal  possessions  of  the  bishop, 

Robert  de  Courcy  appears  first.  Brunner  (p.  266)  suggests  the  natural  explanation 
that  in  each  case  the  document  was  drawn  up  by  the  justice  whose  name  appears 
first.  The  similar  reports  of  the  recognition  in  regard  to  CheffrevUle  (nos.  89,  90) 
are  made  by  the  justices  individually. 

No.  39,  where  the  facts  with  regard  to  Cambremer  are  set  forth  at  length  along 
with  the  returns  from  other  domains,  the  two  justices  appearing  among  the  witnesses. 
References  to  this  recognition  are  also  made  in  nos.  9,  12,  32,  and  156. 

No.  39,  end. 

^'  No.  19;  Brunner,  p.  268.  Cf.  also  the  notification  in  no.  18  of  the  quitclaim 
of  the  fosse  of  Luchon. 

No.  36;  Delislfi-Berger,  no.  14. 


208 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


on  the  other  hand,  brings  us  a  step  nearer  the  later  assizes.  There 
is,  it  is  true,  no  distinction  in  principle  between  recognizing  the 
bishop's  demesne  and  recognizing  his  fiefs ;  but  inasmuch  as  dis- 
putes between  lord  and  tenant  constitute  a  large  proportion  of  the 
cases  arising  under  the  later  assizes,  the  submission  of  any  such 
controversy  to  the  sworn  verdict  of  neighbors  is  a  movement 
away  from  the  inquest  that  is  primarily  fiscal,  and  toward  the 
general  application  of  the  inquest  to  suits  concerning  tenure. 
Whether  Geoffrey  also  imitated  the  example  of  Henr}'  I  in  order- 
ing a  general  inquest  with  regard  to  the  fiefs  of  the  bishop  does  not 
clearly  appear.  Henry  11  indicates  that  such  was  the  case,^'  and 
an  extant  writ  directs  one  of  the  duke's  justices  to  have  the 
bishop's  fief  in  his  district  recognized,  =^  but  no  set  of  returns  for 
the  fiefs  has  been  preserved,  and  the  compiler  of  the  list  of  the 
bishop's  tenants  in  the  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer  went  back  to  the 
returns  of  the  inquest  of  Henr}-  I.^^  There  is,  however,  another 
writ  of  Geoffrey  relating  to  the  bishop's  fiefs  which  deserves  care- 
ful attention.  It  is  addressed  to  all  his  barons,  justices,  bailiffs, 
and  other  faithful  subjects  in  Normandy,  and  pro\'ides  that  "  if 
a  dispute  shall  arise  between  the  bishop  and  any  of  his  men  con- 
cerning any  tenement,  it  shall  be  recognized  by  the  oath  of  lawful 
men  of  the  vicinage  who  was  seized  of  the  land  in  Bishop  Odo's 
time,  whether  it  was  the  bishop  or  the  other  claimant;  and  the 
verdict  thus  declared  shall  be  firmly  observed  unless  the  tenant 
can  show,  in  the  duke's  court  or  the  bishop's,  that  the  tenement 
came  to  him  subsequently  by  inheritance  or  lawful  gift."^  Here 

Litre  noir,  no.  14.  Ihid.,  no.  24. 

"  Pp.  645-647;  H.  F.,  xxiii.  699. 

"  '  Volo  et  precipio  quod  si  de  aliqua  tenedura  orta  fuerit  contentio  inter  episco- 
pum  et  aliquem  de  suis  hominibus,  per  iuramentum  legitimorum  bominum  \-icinie 
in  qua  hoc  fuerit  sit  recognitum  quis  saisitus  inerat  tempore  Odonis  episcopi,  v  el  ipse 
episcopus  vel  ille  cum  quo  erit  contentio;  et  quod  inde  recognitum  fuerit  firmiter 
teneatur,  nisi  ille  qui  tenet  poterit  ostendere  quod  tenedura  Ula  in  manus  suas  |X)stea 
venerit  iure  hereditario  aut  taU  donatione  que  iuste  debeat  stare,  et  hoc  in  curia 
episcopi  vel  in  mea.'  Livre  noir,  no.  16;  Bigelow,  p.  390,  no.  43;  Brunner,  p.  265. 
It  is  also  proxided  that  no  officer  shall  enter  upon  the  bishop's  lands,  for  judicial  or 
other  purposes,  except  in  accordance  with  the  practice  of  King  Henr>-'s  time.  The 
writ  is  witnessed  at  Rouen  by  the  count  of  Meulan,  so  that  it  must  be  anterior  to 
the  summer  of  1147  or,  what  is  much  less  likely,  subsequent  to  his  return  from  the 
East  in  1149  or  thereabouts. 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


209 


we  have  something  new,  so  far  as  existing  sources  of  information 
permit  us  to  judge.  Instead  of  a  general  inquest  to  be  held  once 
for  all  by  the  king's  officers  to  ascertain  the  tenure  of  the  bishop's 
fiefs,  the  writ  in  question  confers  a  continuing  privilege  — in  any 
controversy  that  may  arise  between  the  bishop  and  any  of  his 
men  the  procedure  by  sworn  inquest  shaU  be  appHed.  The  remedy 
is  designed  for  the  benefit  of  the  bishop,  not  of  his  tenants;  no 
attempt  is  made  to  deprive  the  bishop  of  his  court  or  extend  the 
competence  of  the  court  of  the  duke ;  but  the  establishment  of  the 
principle  that,  not  merely  in  this  case  or  in  that  case,  but  in  any 
case  between  the  bishop  and  one  of  his  tenants  the  oath  of  lawful 
neighbors  shall  decide,  is  a  considerable  advance  in  the  extension 
of  the  duke's  prerogative  procedure  to  his  subjects.*^ 

It  is  in  the  hght  of  this  document  that  we  should  read  the  two 
writs  of  Geoffrey  which  make  mention  of  the  duke's  assize.  As 
they  were  both  witnessed  at  Le  Mans  by  Payne  de  Clairvaux^^ 
and  appear  together  in  the  cartulary,  it  is  probable  that  they  were 
issued  about  the  same  time.  One  of  them,  resembling  the  later 
Praecipe  quod  reddat,  is  directed  to  Enjuger  de  Bohun,  this  time 
not  as  one  of  the  king's  justices  but  as  in  wrongful  possession  of 
two  fiefs  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux  at  Vierville  and  Montmartin. 
He  is  ordered  to  relinquish  these  to  the  bishop  and  to  refrain  from 
further  encroachments;  unless  the  fiefs  are  given  up,  Geoffrey's 
justice  Richard  de  la  Haie  is  directed  to  determine  by  recognition, 
in  accordance  with  the  duke's  assize,  the  tenure  of  the  fief  in  King 
Henry's  time  and  to  secure  the  bishop  in  the  possession  of  the 
rights  thus  found  to  belong  to  him.  The  writ  adds:  "  I  likewise 
command  you,  Richard  de  la  Haie,  throughout  your  district  "  to 

^  In  such  cases,  too,  the  writ  could  be  issued  in  the  duke's  name  without  the 
necessity  of  his  initiative  in  every  case. 

An  Angevin  knight,  who  was  one  of  Geoffrey's  favorite  companions  (Halphen 
and  Poupardin,  Chroniques  des  comtes  d'Anjou,  pp.  178,  207)  and  frequently  ap- 
pears as  a  witness  to  his  charters,  e.  g..  Round,  Calendar,  no.  1394;  MSS.  Dom 
Housseau  in  the  BibUotheque  Nationale,  iv,  nos.  1505,  1567,  1587,  1614;  Delisle, 
Henri  II,  p.  410. 

The  proof  that  Geoffrey  is  the  author  of  this  writ  is  of  importance  in  connec- 
tion with  this  passage  because  of  its  bearing  upon  the  date  of  the  institution  of 
bailiae  in  Normandy.  For  the  discussion  on  this  point  see  Stapleton,  i,  p.  xxxiv; 
Delisle  in  B.  E.  C,  x.  260;  Brunner,  p.  157;  supra,  Chapter  IV,  note  117. 


2IO 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


have  the  bishop's  fief  recognized  according  to  my  assize  and  to  see 
that  he  possesses  it  in  peace  as  it  shall  be  recognized  according  to 
my  assize."^  The  other  writ  is  addressed  by  Geoffrey  to  his  jus- 
tices Guy  de  Sable  and  Robert  de  Courcy,  and  directs  them  to 
ascertain  by  recognition,  according  to  his  assize,  who  was  seized 
of  the  fief  and  service  of  William  Bersic  in  King  Henry's  time,  and 
if  it  is  recognized  that  the  bishop  of  Bayeux  was  then  seized 
thereof,  to  secure  his  peaceful  possession.  They  are  also  com- 
manded to  determine  by  recognition,  according  to  the  duke's 
assize,  who  was  seized  of  the  land  of  Cramesnil  and  Rocquancourt 
in  Henry's  time,  and  if  it  be  recognized  that  Vauquelin  de  Cour- 
seuUes  was  then  seized  of  it,  to  secure  him  in  peaceful  possession 
and  prohibit  Robert  Fitz  Erneis  and  his  men  from  doing  him  injury, 
at  the  same  time  compelling  them  to  restore  anything  they  may 
have  taken  from  the  estate  since  the  duke  issued  his  precept  in 
relation  thereto. 

'  G.  dux  Normannorum  et  comes  Andegavie  E[ngengero]  de  Buhun  salutem. 
Mando  tibi  et  precipio  quod  dimittas  episcopo  Baiocensi  in  pace  feudum  militis 
quod  Robertus  Marinus  de  ipso  tenebat  Wirenille  et  feudum  suum  quod  Willelmus 
de  Moiun  de  ipso  apud  Mumnartin  tenere  debet,  quod  hue  usque  iniuste  occupasti; 
quod  nisi  feceris,  precipio  quod  iusticia  mea  R[icardus]  de  Haia  secundum  assisiam 
meam  recognosci  facial  predictum  feodum  episcopi  quomodo  antecessores  sui 
tenuerunt  tempwre  regis  Henrici,  et  sicut  recognitum  fuerit  ita  episcopum  in  pace 
tenere  faciat.  Et  te,  Engengere,  precor  ne  de  aliquo  iniuste  fatiges  episcopum,  quia 
ego  non  paterer  quod  de  iure  suo  aliquid  iniuste  perderet.  Tibi  etiam,  Ricarde 
Lahaia,  precipio  quod  per  totam  bailiam  tuam,  secundum  assisiam  meam,  recog- 
nosci facias  feudum  episcopi  Baiocensis,  et  ipsum  in  pace  tenere  sicut  recognitum 
fuerit  secundum  assisiam  meam.  Teste  Pag[ano]  de  Clar[is]  Vall[ibus],  apud  Ceno- 
manos.'  Livre  noir,  no.  24;  Stapleton,  i,  p.  xxxiv;  Brunner,  pp.  80,  302;  Bigelow, 
p.  392,  no.  46;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  1439. 

'  G.  dux  Norm[annorum]  et  comes  Andegavie  G[uidoni]  de  Sableio  et  R[oberto] 
de  Curc[eio]  iusticiis  suis  salutem.  Mando  vobis  quod  sine  mora  recognosci  facialis, 
secundum  asisiam  meam,  de  feodo  Guillelmi  Bersic  et  de  servicio  eiusdem  quis  inde 
saisitus  erat  tempore  regis  Henrici;  et  si  recognitum  fuerit  quod  episcopus  Baiocensis 
inde  saisitus  esset  vivente  rege  Henrico,  ei  habere  et  tenere  in  pace  facialis.  Preterea 
vobis  mando  quod  recognosci  facialis,  secundum  asisiam  meam,  de  terra  de  Cras- 
mesnil  et  de  Rochencorl  quis  inde  saisitus  erat  tempore  regis  Henrici;  et  si  recog- 
nitum fuerit  quod  Gauquelinus  de  Corceliis  inde  saisitus  esset  eo  tempore,  ei  in  pace 
tenere  facialis  et  prohibele  Roberto  filio  Emeis  ne  aliquid  ei  forifaciat  neque  sui 
homines;  el  si  Robertus  filius  Emeis  sive  sui  homines  aliquid  inde  ceperint,  posl- 
quam  precepi  in  Epipphania  Domini  quod  terra  esset  in  pace  donee  iuraretur  cuius 
deberel  esse,  reddere  facialis.  Teste  P[agano]  de  Clarps]  VaU[ibus],  apud  Ceno- 
manos.'  Livre  noir,  no.  2s;  Brunner,  p.  302;  Bigelow,  p.  393,  no.  47;  not  in  Round. 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


211 


If  we  compare  these  writs  with  the  only  other  special  writ  of 
Geoffrey  in  the  Livre  noir,  that  directing  the  recognition  concern- 
ing the  hanlieue  of  Cambremer,^"  we  find  the  essential  difference 
to  be  that  whereas  in  the  case  of  Cambremer  it  is  expressly  pro- 
vided that  the  facts  shall  be  ascertained  by  the  oath  of  good  men 
of  the  vicinage  (faciatis  recognosci  per  sacramentum  proborum 
hominum  de  vicinio) ,  in  the  two  other  writs  no  statement  is  made 
regarding  the  procedure  except  that  the  facts  are  to  be  fovmd 
according  to  the  duke's  assize  (recognosci  faciatis  secundum 
asisiam  meam).  The  same  difference  appears  in  the  writs  of 
Henry  II  for  Bayeux;  indeed,  in  a  single  document  provision  is 
made  for  the  determination  of  one  question  by  the  verdict  of 
ancient  men,  and  of  others  in  accordance  with  the  assize. The 
absence  from  the  cartulary  of  any  returns  from  the  justices  who 
were  instructed  to  proceed  in  accordance  with  the  assize  precludes 
our  comparing  the  procedure;  the  analogy  of  the  practice  in  re- 
gard to  the  bishop's  demesne  and  in  the  matter  of  his  feudal 
rights  at  Cheffreville  leads  us  to  look  for  the  sworn  inquest  of 
neighbors  in  these  cases  as  well.  The  word  '  assize,'  as  Littleton 
long  ago  pointed  out,*^^  is  an  ambiguous  term.  It  seems  to  have 
meant  originally  a  judicial  or  legislative  assembly,  from  which  it 
was  extended  to  the  results  of  the  dehberations  of  such  an  assem- 
bly, whether  in  the  form  of  statute  or  of  judgment,  and  was  then 
carried  over  from  the  royal  or  ducal  assizes  which  estabUshed  the 
procedure  by  recognition  to  that  form  of  procedure  itself.^*  In 
the  writs  in  question  '  my  assize  '  may  refer  to  an  ordinance  of 
Geoffrey  regulating  procedure,  it  may  denote  the  procedure  so 

No.  17. 

^  No.  27;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  21. 

^2  Nos.  89  and  90  (Bigelow,  pp.  398,  399,  nos.  54,  55;  Brunner,p.  269,  ascribing 
them  to  Henry  II),  the  returns  made  by  the  duke's  justices,  Galeran  of  Meulan  and 
Reginald  of  Saint- Valery,  of  an  inquest  held  in  regard  to  the  respective  rights  of  the 
bishops  of  Bayeux  and  Lisieux  at  Cheffreville.  The  buU  of  Eugene  III  (no.  156) 
which  enumerates  the  possessions  recovered  by  PhUip  d'Harcourt  mentions  the 
recovery  of  fiefs  at  Ducy  and  Louvieres  by  judgment  of  Geoffrey's  court,  but  noth- 
ing is  said  of  the  procedure  and  none  of  the  documents  are  preserved. 

®  Temires,  c.  234. 

"  Bmnner,  p.  299.  Cf.  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History,  i.  614;  Murray's  Dic- 
tionary, s.  V. 


212 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


established,  or  it  may  conceivably  mean  only  the  prerogative  pro- 
cedure of  the  duke  —  his  not  in  the  sense  of  origination  but  of 
exclusive  possession.  Bnmner's  contention,  that  the  phrase  can 
refer  only  to  an  ordinance  by  which  a  particular  sovereign  intro- 
duced the  procedure  by  recognition  as  a  regular  remedy  through- 
out Normandy,  involves  a  nmnber  of  assumptions  which  need 
proof.  Even  if  it  be  admitted  that  the  assize  here  mentioned  was  a 
ducal  ordinance,  the  use  of  the  same  expression  by  Geoffrey  and 
Henry  II  stands  in  the  way  of  ascribing  the  exclusive  credit  for 
the  act  to  either  of  these  rulers,  while  it  is  still  imnecessary  to 
assume  that  the  supposed  ordinance  covered  the  whole  duchy. 
There  is  nothing  in  either  of  the  writs  which  goes  beyond  the 
sphere  of  the  bishop's  interests,^^  and  vmless  new  evidence  can  be 
brought  forward  for  other  parts  of  Normandy,  we  have  no  right 
to  conclude  that  the  supposed  ordinance  affected  any  one  except 
the  bishop  of  Bayeux.  Now  we  have  just  such  a  special  privilege 
for  the  bishop  in  the  writ  providing  for  the  use  of  the  sworn  in- 
quest in  disputes  between  the  bishop  and  his  men  concerning  any 
tenement.®^  This  covers  exactly  the  sort  of  cases  which  appear  in 
the  two  special  writs  that  mention  the  duke's  assize,  and  may  well 
be  the  assize  to  which  they  refer.^^  So  far  the  hypothesis  that  the 
general  writ  preserved  in  the  cartulary  is  the  much-discussed 
assize  of  Geoffrey  seems  to  meet  the  conditions  of  the  case,  but 
it  is  subject  to  modification  when  we  examine  the  documents  in 
which  the  word  assize  appears  imder  Henry  II. 

It  is  not  specifically  stated  in  no.  25  that  Cramesnil  and  Rocquancourt  were 
fiefs  of  the  bishop,  but  we  know  from  other  sources  that  Cramesnil  was,  and  they 
were  evidently  connected.  See  the  inquest  of  Henry  I  {M.  A.  N.,  viii.  427;  H.  F., 
xxiii.  700;  Beziers,  Memoires,  i.  144);  also  Beziers,  i.  153;  and  C.  Hippeau,  Dic- 
tionnaire  topographique  du  Calvados,  p.  90. 
««  No.  16. 

There  is,  it  is  true,  a  discrepancy  in  the  periods  set  as  the  basis  of  the  recogni- 
tion; in  no.  16  the  lands  are  to  be  held  as  in  Bishop  Odo's  time,  whUe  in  nos.  24  and 
25  the  tenure  of  Henry  I's  time  is  to  be  established.  The  difference  is,  however,  of 
no  special  importance;  the  documents  in  the  cartulary  do  not  appear  to  make  any 
sharp  distinction  between  the  two  periods,  and  the  writs  may  well  have  varied  ac- 
cording to  circumstances.  The  returns  concerning  the  feudal  rights  at  Cheffreville 
(nos.  89,  90)  go  back  to  the  tenure  of  Henry's  time,  those  relating  to  Cambremer 
mention  both  his  and  Odo's,  while  in  the  latter  portion  of  no.  16  the  practice  of 
Henry's  time  is  to  be  observed  in  regard  to  the  immunity  of  the  bishop's  lands. 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


213 


For  the  reign  of  Henry  II  the  Livre  noir  yields  much  less  than 
for  that  of  Geoffrey,  under  whom  the  bishop  would  seem  to  have 
succeeded  in  regaining  the  larger  part  of  his  lands  and  privileges. 
The  use  of  the  sworn  inquest  continues  —  indeed  Henry  was 
compelled  to  employ  it  repeatedly  for  the  recovery  of  his  own 
ducal  rights,  which  had  suffered  severely  during  the  anarchy 
vmder  Stephen,^^  so  that  we  hear  of  inquests  held  in  the  early 
years  of  his  reign  to  ascertain  the  duke's  demesne  and  customs  at 
Bayeux  and  in  the  BessinJ"  On  behalf  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux 
Henry  issued  not  later  than  11 53  a  general  precept,  which,  after 
reciting  the  proceedings  under  Henry  I  and  Geoffrey,  directed  the 
recognition  of  the  bishop's  demesne, fiefs,  hberties,  and  customs  by 
the  oath  of  ancient  and  lawful  men  acquainted  with  the  facts,  as 
they  had  been  sworn  to  in  the  time  of  his  father  and  grandfather 
In  1 1 56  a  similar  writ  was  issued  with  reference  to  the  bishop's 
forests,"  and  while  no  new  recognition  seems  to  have  been  held 
for  the  hanlieue  of  Cambremer,  the  justices  were  repeatedly  in- 
structed to  secure  the  observance  of  the  bishop's  rights  there  as 
defined  in  Geoffrey's  time.^^  The  bishop's  multure  at  Bayeux 
and  his  rights  in  the  ducal  forests  of  the  Bessin  were  Ukewise  the 
object  of  a  recognition  in  1156,^*  and  still  other  inquests  related 
to  his  rights  at  Isigny  and  Neuilly  and  his  possessions  at  Caen. 
The  only  matter  deserving  special  remark  among  these  various 
inquests  is  found  in  the  writ  of  1156  touching  the  rights  at  Caen, 
which,  hke  the  others,  is  addressed  to  the  chief  local  ofl&cer, 
William  Fitz  John,  and  runs  as  follows:  "  I  command  you  to 
have  recognized  by  ancient  men  of  Caen  from  how  many  and 
which  houses  in  Caen  the  bishops  of  Bayeux  were  wont  to  have 

Cf.  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  284. 
8'  Livre  noir,  nos.  13,  138;  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  68*,  76*;  M.  A.  N.,  vii.  179. 
Livre  noir,  no.  35;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  38. 

Livre  noir,  no.  14;  Bigelow,  p.  389,  no.  42;  Briinner,  p.  268;  Delisle-Berger, 
no.  33*. 

Livre  noir,  no.  36;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  14. 
"  Livre  noir,  nos.  9,  12,  32;  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  13,  72,  228. 
"  Livre  noir,  nos.  28,  35;  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  22,  38.   Cf.  Chapter  V,  note  19, 
supra. 

Livre  noir,  no.  46  (also  in  Livre  rouge,  no.  46),  subsequent  to  the  accessioa 
of  Bishop  Henry  in  11 65. 


214 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


rent  and  profits  in  the  time  of  King  Henry,  my  grandfather,  and 
what  services  and  customs  they  had  from  them.  And  you  shall 
cause  Philip,  bishop  of  Bayeux,  to  possess  the  houses  fully  and 
justly  and  in  peace  according  as  the  recognition  shall  determine. 
And  you  shall  do  him  full  right,  according  to  my  assize,  in  respect 
to  the  land  where  the  bishop's  barns  used  to  stand,  and  full  right 
in  respect  to  the  arable  land  by  the  water,  according  to  my  assize, 
and  full  right  in  respect  to  the  tithes  of  woolens  at  Caen,  accord- 
ing to  my  assize."  Here  we  have  again,  and  three  times,  the 
puzzling  words  secundum  assisam  meam,  and  Brunner  drew  from 
them  the  conclusion  that  Henry  was  the  creator  of  recognitions 
in  Normandy."  The  phrase  is  not  found  in  the  writ  which  seems 
to  have  been  issued  at  the  same  time  for  the  recognition  of  the 
bishop's  multure  and  his  rights  in  the  forests  of  the  Bessin,  where, 
however,  there  is  the  difference  that  the  rights  in  question 
touched  the  king's  own  privileges  and  were  recognized  by  the 
jurors  specially  appointed  to  swear  to  Henry's  customs  and 
demesne  in  the  Bessin.'^*  No  other  Bayeux  docimient  referring  to 
the  duke's  assize  has  been  found,  and  there  is  nothing  in  this  one 
to  show  that  the  assize  included  anything  outside  of  the  bishop's 
possessions  or  involved  any  method  of  procedure  different  from 
"  the  oath  of  old  and  lawful  men  who  know  the  facts,"  as  pre- 
scribed in  the  general  order  for  the  recognition  of  the  bishop's 

"  '  Henricus  rex  Anglie  et  dux  Normannie  et  Aquitanie  et  comes  Andegavie  Wil- 
lelmo  filio  lohannis  salutem.  Precipio  tibi  quod  facias  recognosci,  per  antiques 
homines  Cadomi,  quot  et  quarum  domorum  in  Cadomo  episcopi  Baiocenses  solebant 
habere  censum  et  redditus  tempore  Henrici  regis  a\d  mei,  et  que  servicia  et  quales 
consuetudines  inde  tunc  habebant;  et  sicut  fuerit  (MS.  fuerat)  recognitum,  ita  in 
pace  et  iuste  et  integre  eas  facias  habere  Philippo  episcopo  Baiocensi.  Et  plenum 
rectum  ei  facias  de  terra  ubi  grangee  episcopi  esse  solebant  (MS.  esse  bis),  secundum 
assisam  meam;  et  plenum  rectum  ei  facias  de  terra  arabili  que  est  iuxta  aquam, 
secundum  assisam  meam ;  et  plenum  rectum  ei  facias  de  decimis  (blank  in  MS.) 
et  lanifeciorum  de  Cadomo,  secundum  assisam  meam.  Et  nisi  feceris,  Robertus  de 
Novo  Burgo  faciat.  Teste  Toma  cancellario  apud  Lemovicas.'  Livre  noir,  no. 
27;  La  Rue,  Essais  hisloriques  sur  la  ville  de  Caen,  i.  375;  Bigelow,  p.  393,  no. 
48;  Bruimer,  p.  302;  Round,  no.  1443  (incomplete);  Delisle-Berger,  no.  21. 

"  Schivurgerichte,  p.  303. 

Writ  in  Livre  noir,  no.  28;  returns,  ibid.,  no.  35:  '  per  sacramenta  iuratorum 
qui  sunt  constituti  ad  iurandas  consuetudines  meas  et  dominica  mea  de  Baiocensi.' 
Delisle-Berger,  nos,  22,  38. 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY  21 5 

rights  which  was  issued  by  Henry  before  he  became  king7^  This 
general  precept  may  not  be  the  assize  in  question,  but  it  certainly 
covers  the  ground  of  the  special  writ  for  Caen,  and  we  are  not 
obliged  to  infer  that  anything  broader  was  meant  by  Henry's  use 
of  the  term  assize.  Whether  he  also  issued  a  general  writ  similar 
to  that  of  Geoffrey  providing  for  the  regular  use  of  the  sworn 
inquest  in  suits  between  the  bishop  and  his  tenants,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  say.  No  such  document  has  been  preserved,  nor  do  any 
of  the  documents  of  Henry's  time  in  the  Livre  noir  relate  to  cases 
where  the  fiefs  of  the  bishop  are  concerned. 

Taken  in  themselves  and  interpreted  in  their  relations  to  the 
other  Bayeux  documents,  the  three  writs  which  contain  the 
phrase  secundum  assisiam  meam  do  not  demonstrate  Brunner's 
thesis  that  a  system  of  recognitions  was  created  throughout  Nor- 
mandy by  a  ducal  ordinance,  whether  of  Henry  II  or  of  his  father, 
for  they  do  not  necessarily  take  us  beyond  the  bishopric  of  Bayeux 
and  its  possessions.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
writs  inconsistent  with  such  a  general  ordinance,  and  any  men- 
tion of  a  ducal  assize  elsewhere  in  Normandy  would  point  clearly 
toward  some  more  comprehensive  measure  estabUshing  procedure 
by  recognition.  Such  a  reference  to  an  assize  meets  us  early  in  the 
reign  of  Henry  II  in  connection  with  the  monastery  of  Saint- 
Etienne  de  Caen.  For  this  favored  foundation  of  the  Norman 
dukes  a  series  of  documents,  unfortunately  less  numerous  and  less 
detailed  than  those  extant  for  the  see  of  Bayeux,  records  various 
recognitions  held  in  the  period  between  Henry's  coronation  as 
king  and  1164.  In  two  cases  we  have  the  reports  of  the  justices 
who  held  the  recognition,^"  in  others  only  the  royal  charter  con- 
firming the  results.*^  Thus  in  1 157  an  inquest  was  held  at  Caen  by 

"  Livre  voir,  no.  14;  DeL'sle-Berger,  no.  33*. 

The  charter  of  Robert  de  Neufbourg  notifying  the  inquest  at  Dives  (Valin, 
p.  267;  cf.  DeviUe,  Analyse,  p.  42),  and  the  charter  of  Rotrou  of  fivreux  and  Regi- 
nald of  Saint- Valery  relating  the  recognition  at  Bayeux  (M.  A.  N.,  xv.  197;  Valin, 
p.  270).  Robert's  report  on  the  inquest  at  Avranches  was  preserved  in  the  lost 
cartulary  summarized  in  DevUle,  Analyse,  p.  18.  On  these  justiciars  see  supra, 
Chapter  V. 

Charter  of  Henry  II  issued  at  Caen  between  1156  and  1161:  Delisle-Berger, 
no.  153;  extracts  in  Valin,  p.  268.  There  is  also  a  parallel  writ  of  the  king,  issued 
doubtless  at  the  same  time,  in  Delisle-Berger,  no.  104;  M.  A.  N.,  xv.  198.  The 


2l6 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


the  seneschal  of  Normandy,  Robert  de  Neufbourg,  to  determine 
the  obligation  of  the  abbey's  men,  with  those  of  others,  to  carry 
in  the  king's  hay  at  Bretteville  and  Verson.^^  Before  his  retire- 
ment in  1 1 59  the  same  seneschal  held  a  detailed  recognition  at 
Dives-sur-Mer,  on  the  oath  of  ten  lawful  men,  respecting  the 
rights  of  the  abbot  at  Dives  and  Cabourg;*^  a  recognition  at 
Avranches,  "  by  the  lawful  men  of  the  province,"  respecting 
freedom  from  toll  in  that  city;  and  a  recognition  concerning 
the  abbey's  rights  and  possessions  at  Rouen. Before  1161  the 
bishops  of  Evreux  and  Bayeux  and  other  justices  hold  an  inquest 
concerning  the  abbey's  rights  over  houses  in  its  bourg  at  Caen,^ 
and  between  1161  and  11 64  it  was  determined  by  recognition 
before  the  king's  justices,  in  an  assize  at  Bayeux,  that  various 
lands  in  Cristot  and  elsewhere  were  fiefs  of  Saint-Etienne.*^ 

The  subjects  of  these  inquiries  do  not  differ  from  those  held  for 
the  bishop  of  Bayeux  and  others,  nor  is  the  procedure  in  any 
instance  described  specifically.  One  case,  however,  challenges  our 
special  attention.  At  Rouen  "  it  was  recognized  that  the  monks 
should  hold  quit  their  meadows  of  Bapeaiune,  with  respect  to 
which  William,  son  of  Thetion  de  Fonte,  who  claimed  the  right  to 
them  {ius),  failed  as  regards  his  claim  and  the  decision  of  right 
before  Robert  and  the  barons  of  Normandy  in  the  king's  curia 
and  as  regards  the  assize  which  he  had  demanded  with  respect 
thereto."      The  account  is  brief,  all  too  brief,  for  we  have  only 

argument  of  the  editors  that  this  is  anterior  to  the  death  of  Robert  de  Neufbouig 
in  1 1 59  applies  equally  to  the  longer  charter. 

^  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  250,  no.  34. 

^  Valin,  p.  267;  DeviUe,  Analyse,  p.  42. 

'  Recognitum  etiam  fuit  in  plena  assisia  apud  Abrincas  per  legales  homines 
provincie  ':  Delisle-Berger,  no.  153;  Valin,  p.  268;  DevUle,  Analyse,  p.  18,  where 
it  appears  that  the  inquest  was  held  by  Robert. 
Delisle-Berger,  no.  153;  Valin,  p.  268. 

86  Delisle-Berger,  no.  153;  Valin,  p.  268;  Legras,  Le  hourgage  de  Caen,  p.  75, 
note  I. 

"  M.  A.  N.,  XV.  197;  Valin,  p.  270.  The  original,  with  incisions  for  the  seals 
of  the  two  justiciars,  is  in  the  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H.  1883.  The  date  is  fixed 
by  the  mention  of  Achard  of  Avranches  (1161-1171)  and  Rotrou  of  fivreux,  who 
was  translated  to  Rouen  in  11 64  or  1165. 

'  Et  recognitum  fuit  quod  predictis  monachis  remanserunt  sua  prata  de 
Abapalmis  quieta  imde  Willelmus  filius  Thetionis  de  Fonte,  qui  in  illis  clamabat 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


217 


the  summary  of  the  case  m  a  royal  charter  of  confirmation,  and 
language  so  condensed  cannot  be  rigorously  interpreted.  We 
should  naturally  interpret  ius  in  the  sense  of  ultimate  right  or 
title  {maius  ius)  which  it  bears  in  the  writs  of  the  period ;  but  it  is 
clearly  the  claimant,  William  Fitz  Thetion,  who  demands  the 
assize,  and  there  was  no  way  known  to  the  Anglo-Norman  pro- 
cedure by  which  the  plaintiff  could  demand  an  assize  on  the  ques- 
tion of  right. If  title  was  the  question  at  issue  here,  assisia 
might  refer  to  the  jury  which  the  claimant  might  secure  after  the 
tenant  had  put  himself  upon  the  assize,  the  jury  then  rendering 
its  verdict  in  spite  of  the  claimant's  default.  It  seems  simpler, 
however,  to  hold,  with  VaUn,  that  ius  is  here  employed  in  a 
general  rather  than  a  technical  sense,  and  that  the  question  was 
one  of  possession.  In  any  case  the  essential  point  is  that  the  party 
which  demanded  the  assize  was  the  lay  claimant,  not  the  monas- 
tery, as  in  the  other  recognitions  for  Saint-Etienne.  The  assize 
in  this  instance,  therefore,  cannot  be  a  special  privilege  enjoyed 
by  an  ecclesiastical  estabhshment,  since  it  is  demanded  against 
the  monks,  nor  could  such  a  claimant  have  put  himself  upon  the 
assize  unless  this  was  a  regular  method  of  trial,  such  as  the  term 
comes  to  denote  in  England.  This  assize  may,  of  course,  be  quite 
different  from  the  assisia  mea  of  the  Bayeux  documents,  for  there 
is  nothing  to  exclude  the  issuance  of  more  than  one  ducal  ordi- 
nance on  the  subject  or,  if  we  take  assize  merely  in  its  procedural 
sense,  the  existence  of  more  than  one  form  of  trial  established  by 
ducal  initiative.  Whatever  the  Bayeux  assizes  may  have  been, 
the  assize  in  the  case  of  Saint-Etienne  is  more  significant,  since  it  is 
clearly  open  to  the  ordinary  lay  claimant,  even  against  a  rehgious 
establishment  protected  by  the  duke.  So  far  as  it  goes,  it  affords 
conclusive  evidence  that  by  11 59  the  prerogative  procedure  has 
been  extended  to  subjects,  at  least  for  one  class  of  cases,  much  as 
in  the  English  assize  of  novel  disseisin  instituted  in  1166. 

ius,  defecit  se  de  iure  et  de  consideratione  recti  coram  Roberto  et  coram  baronibus 
Normannie  in  curia  regis  et  de  assisia  quam  inde  requisierat ':  Valin,  p.  268; 
Delisle-Berger,  no.  153,  from  Cartulaire  de  Normandie,  f.  21V. 

Glanvill,  bk.  ii;  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  c.  85;  Brunner,  Schwurgerichte, 
pp.  312-314;  Valin,  p.  213  f.  Professor  G.  B.  Adams  has  convinced  me  that  Valin 
is  probably  correct  in  interpreting  ius  in  this  passage  as  meaning  possession  only. 


2l8 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


Another  instance  of  what  is  apparently  the  ordinary  and  regular 
use  of  the  recognition  is  found,  but  without  any  mention  of  an 
assize,  in  1159,  when,  in  the  king's  court  at  Ga\Tay,  Osmund,  son 
of  Richard  Vasce,  "  on  the  oath  of  lawful  men,  proved  his  right  to 
the  presentation  of  Mesnil-Drey  and  two  sheaves  of  its  tithe  as  his 
ancestors  had  always  had  them."  Neither  Osmund  nor  his  op- 
ponent, Ralph  de  la  Mouche,  was  a  pri\-ileged  person,  and  this 
method  of  trial  seems  to  have  been  resorted  to  in  the  king's  court 
as  a  matter  of  course,  and  hence  of  right.  The  probabihty  of 
some  regulation  of  such  suits  in  Normandy  is  rendered  stronger 
by  the  discovery  of  traces  of  legislation  by  Henry  in  England, 
between  11 54  and  1158,  with  reference  to  advowson  and  presen- 
tation.^" If  we  could  accept  the  evidence  of  a  charter  of  Henry 
for  Saint-Evroul,  apparently  given  between  11 59  and  1162,^^  the 
existence  of  a  form  of  recognition  corresponding  to  the  assize 
utrum  would  be  estabhshed  for  Normandy  in  this  period,  at  least 
two  years  before  it  appears  in  England.  This  docimient,  however, 
which  is  suspicious  in  form,^-  does  not  correspond  to  the  report  of 
the  case  by  the  justiciar  Rotrou,^^  given  between  11 64  and  11 66, 

The  notice  of  the  suit  is  in  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  259;  cf.  supra,  Chapter  V, 
note  88.  '  Sacramento  legalium  hominum  '  may  conceivably  mean  party  witnesses, 
but  by  this  time  it  has  become  the  usual  phrase  for  the  sworn  inquest.  For  Ralph 
de  la  Mouche  cf.  a  charter  of  1158  in  Pigeon,  Le  diocese  d'Avranckes,  ii.  672.  On 
Henry's  early  English  legislation,  see  Appendix  I. 

51  Printed  by  me,  from  an  incorrect  copy  from  the  cartulary  of  Saint-Evroul,  MS. 
Lat.  1 1055,  no.  24,  in^.  fl^.  R.,  viii.  634.  Also  in  the  Registres  du  Tresor  des  Chartes, 
JJ.  69,  no.  194;  Round,  no.  641;  DeUsle-Berger,  no.  214,  where  the  date  of  Abbot 
Robert's  accession,  11 59,  is  overlooked  in  dating  the  document. 

^  The  charter  combines  the  king's  stjde  of  the  latter  half  of  the  reign  with  a 
witness  who  cannot  be  later  than  1162,  and  contains  the  suspicious  phrase  teste 
me  ipso,  which  appears  in  two  other  fabrications  of  this  period  from  Saint-£\Toul 
(DeKsle,  nos.  347,  362;  see  pp.  226,  316  f.)  and  has  not  yet  been  found  in  an  origi- 
nal charter  of  this  reign  {ibid.,  p.  226,  where  too  much  is  made  of  the  occurrence 
of  the  phrase  in  charters  for  different  monasteries,  since  copyists  or  forgers  might 
easUy  carr>'  back  a  formula  common  in  the  succeeding  reign).  The  language  of  the 
document  is  also  unusual,  quite  unlike  that  of  Rotrou's  charter,  which  speaks  of 
but  five  knights  and  reports  the  determination  of  more  limited  questions  of  title. 
As  Henry's  charter  is  also  found  in  a  vidimus  of  Matilda,  daughter  of  the  monas- 
tery's adversary  in  the  suit  (cartulary  of  Saint-£\Tou],  no.  426;  Collection  Lenoir, 
at  Semilly,  Ixxii.  17,  Ixxiii.  467),  its  fabrication  or  modification  caimot  be  placed 
more  than  a  generation  later. 

"  '  Rotrodus  Dei  gratia  Rothomagensis  archiepiscopus  omnibus  ad  quos  presens. 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


219 


and  I  believe  it  to  contain  a  somewhat  modernized  version  of  the 
transaction,  prepared  in  the  later  years  of  the  twelfth  century. 
Rotrou's  charter  says  nothing  of  the  question  of  lay  fee  or  alms, 
but  adjudges  to  the  monks,  after  sworn  inquest,  full  right  to  the 
presentation,  tithes,  and  lands  belonging  to  the  church  in  question. 

The  conclusion  that  the  employment  of  the  recognition  was 
extended  and  regularized  by  definite  legislative  act,  rather  than 
by  a  process  of  gradual  development,  is  rendered  probable,  not 
only  by  the  use  of  the  word  assize,  but  also  by  evidence  of  actual 
legislation  in  this  same  period  with  reference  to  the  sworn  inquest 
in  other  matters.  In  1159  at  his  Christmas  court  at  Falaise 
Henry,  besides  providing  that  the  testimony  of  the  vicinage 
should  be  required  in  support  of  charges  brought  by  rural  deans, 
commanded  his  own  ofiicers,  in  the  monthly  meetings  of  the  local 

scriptum  pervenerit  et  precipue  ballivis  domini  regis  salutem.  Sciatis  quod  ex 
precepto  domini  regis  quando  per  eum  per  totam  Normanniam  iusticiam  secularem 
exercebamus,  miseratione  divina  tunc  temporis  Ebroicensem  episcopatum  regentes, 
in  plena  assisia  apud  Rothomagum  die  festo  Sancte  Cecilie  Garinus  de  Grandivalle 
et  Ricardus  Faiel  et  Rogerus  de  Moenaio  et  Rogerus  Goulafre  et  Robertus  Chevalier 
iuraverunt  quod  ecclesia  Sancti  Ebrulfi  et  abbas  et  monachi  eius  anno  et  die  quo  H. 
rex  filius  Willelmi  regis  fuit  vivus  et  mortuus  et  postea  usque  modo  presentationem 
beati  Petri  de  Sap  pacifice  et  quiete  habuit  in  elemosinam  cum  omnibus  decimis  et 
aUis  pertinenciis  suis  et  masnagium  Willelmi  filii  Hugonis  cum  omnibus  pertinenciis 
suis  tam  in  terris  quam  in  aliis  rebus  possedit.  Ipsi  vero  milites  se  fecerunt  ignorantes 
utrum  cultura  que  Ardeneta  noncupatur  ad  ius  Sancti  Ebrulfi  vel  ad  ius  domini  de 
Sap  verius  pertineret,  et  tamen  quandam  acram  terre  in  eadem  cultura  per  eccle- 
siam  Sancti  Ebrulfi  cultam  fuisse  per  sacramentum  se  vidisse  testati  sunt.  Post 
obitum  veropredicti  H.  regis  residuum  predicte  culture  per  abbatem  Sancti  Ebrulfi 
cultum  fuisse  prefati  milites  necnon  et  totam  illam  culturam  ad  abbatiam  Sancti 
Ebrulfi  pocius  quam  ad  dominum  de  Sappo  secundum  oppinionem  suam  pertinere 
iuravenmt.  Nos  autem  domini  regis  adimplentes  mandatum  de  consUio  baronum 
ipsius  qui  presentes  erant  presentationem  predicte  ecclesie  cum  decimis  et  aliis 
pertinenciis  suis  necnon  et  masnagium  iam  dictum  cum  cultura  de  Ardeneta  et  aliis 
omnibus,  que  sicut  dictum  est  secundum  formam  regii  mandati  abbati  et  monachis 
eius  recognita  fuerunt,  eisdem  de  cetero  in  pace  et  quiete  habenda  et  possidenda, 
licet  nunquam  amisissent,  adiudicavimus.  Testibus  Amulfo  Lexoviensi  episcopo, 
H[enrico]  abbati  Fiscannensi,  Victore  abbate  Sancti  Georgii  de  Bauchervilla,  Gale- 
ranno  comite  Mellenti,  comite  Patricio,  camerario  de  Tancarvilla,  Hugone  de 
Gomaco,  Roberto  filio  Geroii,  Nicholao  de  Stotevilla,  Godardo  de  Vallibus,  Roberto 
filio  Hamerici,  Roberto  de  Varvic,  Raginaldo  de  lerponvilla,  Ricardo  Beverel, 
Adam  de  WalneviUa.'  MS.  Lat.  11055,  no.  172.  A.  H.  R.,  xx.  38,  note  93;  now 
also  in  Delisle-Berger,  i.  353.  The  discovery  of  this  document  led  me  to  modify 
the  view  regarding  an  assize  ulrum  which  I  had  expressed  in  A.  H.  R.,  viii.  633  f. 
(1903)- 


220 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


courts,  to  "  pronounce  no  judgments  without  the  evidence  of 
neighbors."  The  exact  meaning  of  this  comprehensive  language 
does  not  appear  from  the  paraphrase  in  our  only  source  of  infor- 
mation, the  Bee  aimalist;  it  seems,  not  only  to  require  such  use 
of  the  accusing  jury  in  ecclesiastical  courts  as  is  prescribed  in  the 
Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  but  also  to  give  it  wider  scope  in  the 
ducal  courts,  very  likely  by  extending  it  to  criminal  accusations 
before  the  duke's  local  judges.  Indeed  from  the  language  used  {de 
causis  similiter  quorumlihet  ventilandis)  it  is  quite  possible  that  the 
evidence  of  neighbors  was  there  prescribed  in  civil  cases  as  well. 

That  the  justices  of  Geoffrey  and  Henry  11  had  by  this  time 
become  familiar  with  this  method  of  procedure  appears  from  vari- 
ous scattered  documents  of  the  period.  Thus  a  charter  of  Geoffrey 
in  favor  of  Algar,  bishop  of  Coutances,  confirms  the  verdict  of  six 
jurors  rendered  in  accordance  with  the  duke's  writ  at  his  assize  at 
Valognes,  to  the  effect  that  Robert  Fitz  Neal  and  his  predeces- 
sors had  held  of  the  bishop  and  his  predecessors  whatever  rights 
they  had  enjoyed  in  the  churches  of  Cherbourg  and  Tourla- 
viEe  and  their  appurtenances.^'   Another  example  of  a  recog- 

'  De  causis  similiter  quorumlibet  ventilandis  instituit  ut,  ciim  iudices  singu- 
larum  provinciarum  singulis  mensibus  ad  minus  simul  devenirent,  sine  testimonio 
vicinorum  nichU  iudicarent ' :  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  i8o.  Cf .  PoUock  and  Maitland, 
i.  151.  Stubbs  says  {Benedict  of  Peterborough,  ii,  p.  Ux):  "  This  looks  very  like  an 
instruction  to  the  county  court."  On  the  ecclesiastical  procedure,  see  infra,  p.  226  f., 
and  Appendix  I. 

'  [G.]  dux  Normannie  et  comes  Andegavie  H.  archiepiscopo  et  omnibus 
episcopis  Normannie,  baronibus,  iusticiis,  et  omnibus  suis  fideUbus,  salutem.  No- 
tum  sit  vobis  atque  omnibus  tam  presentibus  quam  futuris  quod  in  tempore  meo  et 
Algari  Const[anciensis]  episcopi  fuit  iuramento  comprobatum  per  meum  preceptum 
in  assisia  mea  apud  \'alonias  quod  Robertus  (MS.  vob')  filius  NigeUi  et  omnes  prede- 
cessores  sui  ab  Algaro  Constanciensi  et  ab  aliis  predecessoribus  suis  Constan[ciensi- 
bus]  episcopis  tenuerant  quicquid  in  ecclesiis  de  Cesariburgo  et  de  Torlavilla  et 
in  omnibus  possessionibus  ad  illas  ecclesias  pertinentibus  habuerant.  Hoc  vero 
iuraverunt  Ricardus  de  Wauvilla,  WUlehnus  monachus,  Willehnus  de  Sancto  Ger-' 
mano,  WiUelmus  de  Bricque\Tlla,  Ricardus  de  Martinvast,  Rob[ertus]  de  Valonis. 
Quare  ego  concede  quod  hoc  secundum  illorum  iuramentum  ratum  sit  et  perpetuo 
teneatur.  Testes  vero  huius  concessionis  sunt :  R[icardus]  canceUarius,  WUlelmus 
de  Vernon,  Engelg[erus]  de  Bouhon,  Alexander  de  Bouhon,  Jordanus  Taysson, 
Robertus  de  Novo  [Burgo],  Robertus  de  Corceio,  Joisfredus  de  Tur[onibus],  G[au- 
fredus]  de  Cleer,  P[ipinus]  de  TiU'[onibus].  Apud  Sanctum  Laudum.'  Cartulary  B 
of  the  cathedral  of  Coutances,  p.  350,  no.  286.  Here,  as  in  most  of  the  other  docu- 
ments in  this  cartulary,  the  initial  is  left  blank  and  not  indicated,  but  in  this  case 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


221 


nition  in  the  duke's  court,  probably  under  Geoffrey  and  certainly 
before  1 153,  is  found  in  a  ducal  charter  for  the  dean  and  chapter 
of  Rouen  declaring  that  their  rights  in  the  forest  of  Ahermont, 
as  in  the  time  of  Henry  I,  had  been  established  before  the  duke 
by  the  oath  of  lawful  knights,  three  of  whom  are  mentioned 
by  name.^^  Between  11 51  and  11 53  we  have  a  writ  of  Duke 
Henry  ordering  his  justiciar,  Amulf  of  Lisieux,  and  Robert  of 
Montfort  to  cause  the  appurtenances  of  the  church  of  Saint- 
Ymer  to  be  recognized  by  lawful  men.^^  Another  indication  of 
the  prevalence  of  this  method  of  proof  appears,  along  with  clear 
evidence  of  the  continued  use  of  trial  by  battle,  in  the  charters  of 
Geoffrey  and  Henry  for  the  town  of  Rouen,  where,  in  providing 
that  no  citizen  shall  be  held  to  wage  combat  against  a  hired  cham- 
pion, it  is  prescribed  that  the  fact  of  the  champion's  professional- 
ism shall  be  determined  on  the  oath  of  ten  citizens  of  Rouen 
selected  by  the  justice.^'  With  regard  to  the  abbey  of  Savigny, 

it  is  supplied  by  a  vidimus  of  Philip  Augustus  in  the  same  cartulary  (p.  351,  no. 
288),  printed  in  Delisle,  Cartulaire  normand,  no.  162,  which  refers  to  this  charter 
as  '  autenticum  G.  ducis  Normannie,  cuius  mandato  fuit  recognitum  in  assisia  apud 
Valonias.'  This,  the  only  surviving  cartulary  of  Coutances,  was  still  in  the  episcopal 
archiveswhen  Iwas  permitted  to  examine  it  in  1902, but  it  has  since  been  transferred 
to  the  departmental  archives  at  Saint-L6. 

By  following  Lechaude  and  overlooking  the  vidimus  Round  {Calendar,  no.  960) 
was  led  to  ascribe  this  charter  to  Henry  II;  so  also  Bigelow,  History  of  Procedure, 
p.  367,  no.  9.  The  treatment  of  this  document  affords  a  good  illustration  of  Le- 
chaude's  carelessness.  Not  only  does  he  omit  the  last  four  witnesses,  but  he  quietly 
inserts  Henry's  name  in  his  copies  —  "  Henricus  "  in  the  '  Cartulaire  de  la  Basse 
Normandie,'  i.  129;  "  Henricus  R."  in  MS.  Lat.  10068,  f.  88,  no.  57.  Brunner,  p. 
269,  prints  the  essential  portion  of  the  charter  and  recognizes  Geoffrey  as  its  author; 
so  now  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  509,  no.  17*  A;  DeUsle-Berger,  i.  2.  The  lost  cartulary 
A,  of  which  a  partial  analysis  is  preserved  in  the  archives,  contained  a  copy  of  the 
vidimtis  which  interpreted  G  as  the  initial  of  a  duke  William;  the  text  as  printed  in 
Dupont,  Histoire  du  Colentin,  i.  466,  is  apparently  derived  from  this  source. 

Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  G.  7,  p.  793;  Valin,  p.  266,  where  it  is  as- 
cribed to  Henry  11;  DeUsle-Berger,  no.  39*,  where  the  possibility  of  Geoffrey's 
authorship  is  admitted.    For  the  reasons  for  attributing  this  charter  to  Geoffrey, 
see  supra,  p.  134.  For  the  charter  of  Henry  I,  see  Appendix  F,  no.  17. 
Cartulaire  de  S.-Ytner,  ed.  Breard,  no.  6;  DeUsle-Berger,  no.  34*. 

'8  Examples  of  the  duel  in  the  duke's  court  wiU  be  found  in  1155  in  Robert  of 
Torigni,  u.  241;  and  in  1157  in  MS.  Rouen  1193,  f.  47,  where  we  find  among  the 
witnesses  '  Mauricio  pugile.' 

"  Charter  of  Geoffrey  as  confirmed  by  Henry  II  soon  after  he  obtained  the 
duchy:  DeUsle-Berger,  no.  14*;  supra,  p,  134, 


222 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


trial  by  lawful  men  of  the  villa  is  prescribed  by  a  writ  of  the 
Empress  Matilda  in  the  case  of  offenses  committed  against  the 
monastery  by  the  foresters  or  their  servants. On  behalf  of  the 
dvike  himself  we  have  no  examples  of  the  employment  of  the  in- 
quest under  Geoffrey,  but  ninnerous  instances  under  Henry  11, 
early  in  his  reign  at  Bayeux  and  in  the  Bessin,  later  in  the  syste- 
matic inquiries  held  by  his  justices  in  1163  and  1171  throughout 
the  whole  of  Normandy.^"^ 

That  Geoffrey's  reign  begins  a  new  stage  in  the  development  of 
the  jury  in  Normandy  may  also  be  argued  from  such  rare  in- 
stances of  the  sworn  inquest  as  we  find  imder  his  predecessors. 
The  great  Bayeux  inquest  of  1133  is  essentially  a  fiscal  inquest, 
since  the  see  was  then  in  the  duke's  hands  and  its  revenues  were 
accordingly  a  matter  of  interest  to  him.^^^  The  same  holds  true 
of  a  writ  of  WiUiam  Rufus  freeing  from  bernagium  a  domain  of 
Bee  donee  ego  inquiram  quomodo  fuit  tempore  patris  mei:  if,  as 
seems  probable,  the  inquiry  was  to  be  made  by  sworn  inquest,  it 
was  to  determine  a  fiscal  obligation.  When  we  leave  these  fiscal 
inquiries,  we  no  longer  find  clear  examples  of  inquests  of  the  later 
type.  The  nearest  approach  is  the  case  of  the  abbey  of  Fontenay 
under  William  the  Conqueror,  who  ordered  the  possessions  of  the 
monastery  recorded  on  oath  by  the  barons  of  the  honor,  four  of 
whom  brought  testimony  of  the  record  to  the  king's  court  at 

100  '  y[_  imperatricis  {sic)  regis  H.  filia,  F.  de  Tenechebrai  salutem.  Mando  tibi 
et  precor  atque  precipio  quod  permittas  senioribus  de  Savigneio  habere  et  tenere 
suam  fabricam  et  alia  omnia  que  ad  eos  pertinent  de  elemosina  predecessoris  mei 
regis  H.  ita  libere  et  quiete  sicut  ea  habuerunt  et  tenuerunt  tempore  ipsius  regis.  Si 
autem  forestarii  vel  aliquis  alius  famulorum  eos  (MS.  eorum)  in  quoquam  forte 
molestaverint  et  inquietaverint,  fac  inde  tractari  causam  iuste  per  homines  legales 
ipsius  villa,  ita  ne  ampiius  inde  clamorem  audiam  pro  recti  penuria.  Si  vero  alius 
aliquis  iniuriam  eis  in  aliquo  fecerit,  manuteneas  eos  ubique  et  protegas  sicut  nos- 
trum dominicum  quod  habemus  protegere  ut  nostram  elemosinam.  Teste  Roberto 
de  Curc[eio],  apud  Falesiam.'  Cartulary  in  the  Archives  of  the  Manche,  no.  280; 
in  part  in  Brunner,  p.  241;  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  141,  no.  5. 

Livre  noir,  nos.  13,  35,  138;  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  68*,  76*,  38;  Robert  of 
Torigni,  i.  344,  ii.  28;  cf.  supra,  p.  159  f.;  infra,  Appendix  K.  The  inquests  for 
Fecamp  in  1162  (DeUsle-Berger,  no.  223)  and  forMortemer  (H.  F.,  xiv.  505)  also 
touch  the  rights  of  the  duke. 

^"^  Supra,  notes  16-23.  Note,  however,  that  Heniy's  Nostell  writ  in  note  153 
was  issued  in  Normandy. 

Supra,  p.  82;  Valin,  p.  200,  note  2. 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY  223 

Caen.'"'*  In  other  instances  of  this  period  the  men  who  swear  are 
party  witnesses,  rather  than  recognitors  who  render  a  verdict  as 
representing  the  knowledge  of  the  community."'^  Even  under 
Henry  I  the  only  ducal  writ  which  has  reached  us  (1106-1120) 
defining  the  mode  of  procedure  in  an  inquiry  upon  oath  leaves  the 
monks  of  Saint-Pere  de  Chartres  free  to  produce  their  own  wit- 
nesses or  to  choose  the  witnesses  for  the  opposing  party: 

H.  rex  Angl[orum]  Wigero  de  Sancta  Maria  Ecclesia  salutem.  Precipio 
ut  teneas  rectum  monachis  Sancti  Petri  Carnotensis  de  terra  eorum  ita: 
siquis  earn  clamaverit  monachi  faciant  earn  probare  per  suos  probos  homines, 
vel  illi  qui  eam  clamaverint  probare  earn  faciant  per  illos  quos  monachus 
elegerit.  Teste  Willelmo  de  Pirou  apud  Cadomum.!"^ 

From  the  time  of  Geoffrey  no  writs  have  come  down  prescribing 
such  a  procedure. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  just  what  Lucius  II  and 
Eugene  III  had  in  mind  when  they  directed  Geoffrey  to  have  the 
possessions  of  Bayeux  established  '  on  oath  by  lawful  witnesses,' 
for  the  church  had  its  traditions  in  such  matters,  as  well  as  the 
state,  and  the  influence  of  canonical  ideas  of  proof  cannot  be 
wholly  ignored  as  a  possibility  in  tracing  the  genesis  of  civil  pro- 
cedure. It  is  accordingly  a  matter  of  some  interest  to  examine  the 
evidence  which  has  reached  us  respecting  the  sworn  inquest  in  the 
ecclesiastical  jurisdictions  of  Normandy  in  this  period.'"^  Taking 
once  more  the  diocese  of  Bayeux  as  our  point  of  departure,  we 
find  Bishop  Philip  intervening  in  a  controversy  over  the  Umits 
of  certain  lands  held  in  alms,  in  order  to  secure  the  consent  of 
the  parties  to  its  submission  to  the  verdict  of  the  countryside. 
"  There  was  a  dispute  between  the  canons  of  Bayeux  and  Luke, 
son  of  Herve,  priest  of  Douvres,  as  to  what  pertained  to  the  alms 
of  the  church  of  Douvres  and  what  to  the  fief  of  Luke."  After 
much  discussion  it  was  agreed  to  submit  the  question  to  ten  men, 
chosen  with  the  consent  of  the  parties  from  the  assembled  parish- 

Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  65;  of.  Brunner,  p.  270;  Valin,  p.  201. 
M.  A.  N.,  XV.  196,  XXX.  681;  cf.  Valin,  p.  198  f. 
106  Original,  formerly  sealed  sur  simple  queue,  MS.  Lat.  9221,  no.  6.  William 
de  Pirou  perished  on  the  White  Ship  in  11 20:  Ordericus,  iv.  418. 

^"^  inquests  on  the  manors  of  monasteries,  held  probably  by  royal  warrant,  fall 
in  a  different  category:  supra,  Chapter  V,  note  23. 


224 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


ioners,  "  in  whose  oath  the  truth  of  the  matter  should  rest." 
Standing  before  the  parish  church,  this  jury  declared  upon  oath 
the  lands  which  belonged  to  the  ahns  of  the  church;  and  when 
Luke  afterward  sought  to  occupy  some  of  the  property  of  the 
canons,  the  jurors  were  called  together  at  Bayeux  and  again 
recognized  the  alms  of  the  church,  which  the  bishop  enimierates 
in  his  charter.^o^  The  proceedings  in  this  case,  though  not  held  in 
accordance  with  a  ducal  writ,  show  all  the  essential  elements  of 
the  recognition — the  promissory  oath,  the  free  decision,  the  ver- 
dict rendered  by  chosen  men  of  the  vicinage ;  and  if  we  remem- 
ber that  the  jury,  in  the  narrower  sense,  as  distinguished  from  the 
assize,  "  has  its  roots  in  the  fertile  ground  of  consent  "  and  "  only 
comes  in  after  both  parties  have  consented  to  accept  its  ver- 
dict," the  importance  of  this  early  example  of  such  a  voluntary 
agreement  is  at  once  evident.  In  other  cases  the  accovmt  of  the 
procedure  is  not  so  specific,  but  points  to  the  use  of  the  recogni- 
tion, or  something  very  like  it,  in  connection  'wdth  the  bishop's 
jurisdiction.  In  one  of  these  instances  a  verdict  is  mentioned 
incidentally  in  documents  of  the  year  1153  relating  to  a  prebend 
created  by  the  bishop  out  of  various  elements,  among  them  the 
land  in  Le  Val  de  Port,  in  the  territory  of  Escures,  held  by  Alex- 
ander, son  of  Teold,  which  Bishop  Philip  caused  to  be  recognized 
in  his  presence  by  the  oaths  of  lawful  men  of  the  said  Val  as 
belonging  to  the  demesne  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux.""  Another 

1°*  '  Erat  igitur  contentio  inter  canonicos  Baiocenses  et  Lucam,  filium  Hervei 
sacerdotis  de  Dovra,  quid  ad  elemosinam  ecclesie  de  Dovra  et  quid  ad  feodum 
ipsius  Luce  pertineret.  Que  controversia,  cum  diu  multumque  ventilata  agitaretur, 
nimc  demum  in  presentia  nostra  et  parrochianorum  de  Dovra  ante  ipsius  ville 
ecclesiam  per  nos  finem  sortita  est.  .  .  .  Vocatis  igitur  ipsius  \'ille  parrochianis 
utriusque  partis  assensu  electi  sunt  decern  solum  (whose  names  follow)  ...  in 
quorum  iuramento  rei  Veritas  consisteret.  Facto  igitur  prius  iuramento  has  terras 
de  elemosina  ecclesie  esse  dixerunt  .  .  .'  Livre  noir,  no.  63.  The  charter  is  not 
dated  or  witnessed,  and  more  definite  dates  cannot  be  assigned  than  the  limits  of 
Philip's  episcopate,  1142-1163. 

1°'  Pollock  and  Maitland,  i.  149.  The  following  is  a  good  example  of  this  prin- 
ciple from  the  year  1182:  '  Coram  Radulfo  episcopo  Lexoviensi  composita  est 
controversia  .  .  .  que  erat  inter  monachos  Beccenses  et  Ricardum  Comubiensem 
canonicum  Lexoviensem  arbitris  Guillehno  presbytero  et  duodecim  hominibus 
iuratis  super  quasdam  decimas  apud  Falcum  et  Montemfortem,  cuique  sua  parte 
pro  iure  suo  iuxta  equitatem  attributa  '  (MS.  Lat.  12884,  f-  238). 

'  Terra  quam  tenuit  Alexander  filius  Theoldi  in  Valle  Portus  in  territorio  de 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


225 


record,  from  the  time  of  PhiKp's  predecessor,  is  in  the  form  of  a 
notice  witnessed  by  the  bishop  and  several  others,  knights  as  well 
as  clerks,  to  the  effect  that  four  men  of  Herils,  who  are  named, 
have  recognized  in  the  presence  of  the  bishop  and  chapter  that  the 
land  which  Gosselin,  succentor  of  the  cathedral,  holds  at  Herils 
and  the  church  of  the  village  were  given  to  GosseHn  in  alms  and 
have  always  been  held  by  him  under  such  tenure."^  It  might  be 
maintained  that  these  four  men  of  Herils  were  party  witnesses 
rather  than  recognitors,  but  the  language  of  the  document  renders 
it  far  more  likely  that  they  were  giving  an  independent  verdict  on 
behalf  of  the  community.  It  is  also  possible  that  in  these  cases 
the  men  were  questioned  individually,  as  in  the  canonical  proced- 
ure "2  and  the  later  French  enquetes,  but  there  is  no  indication  of 
such  an  examination,  and  the  use  of  the  words  recognoscere  and 
recognitio  points  rather  to  a  collective  verdict."^  In  a  still  earlier 
case,  likewise  decided  before  the  bishop  and  chapter,  the  uncer- 
tainty is  greater,  as  nothing  is  said  of  the  residence  of  the  ancient 
men  who  are  mentioned  or  of  the  capacity  in  which  they  appear. 
Still  the  matters  in  controversy,  the  rights  and  revenues  of  the 
chancellor  of  the  cathedral,  are  "recognized  by  the  attestation  of 
ancient  men  "  as  belonging  to  the  chancellor  through  the  act  of 
Bishop  Odo  and  the  continuous  possession  of  former  incumbents 
—  just  such  a  question  as  would  naturally  be  submitted  to  a 

Escures,  quam  videlicet  Philippus,  noster  episcopus,  fecit  recognosci  esse  de  domi- 
nico  Baiocensis  episcopi  per  sacramenta  legalium  hominum  predicte  Vallis.'  Charter 
of  the  chapter  of  Bayeux,  8  May  1153,  Livre  noir,  no.  149;  no.  148  is  a  charter  of 
the  bishop  to  the  same  effect. 

'  Notum  sit  omnibus  tam  presentibus  quam  futuris  quod  homines  de  Heriz, 
et  nominatim  isti  .  .  .  recognoverunt  coram  Ricardo,  Roberti  comitis  Gloecestrie 
filio,  Baiocensi  episcopo,  et  coram  eiusdem  ecclesie  capituio  terram  quam  Goscelinus, 
Baiocensis  ecclesie  succentor,  tenet  apud  Heriz  cum  ecclesia  eiusdem  vUle  eidem 
Goscelino  in  elemosina  datam  fuisse  et  eundem  sic  semper  tenuisse.  Huius  autem 
recognitionis  testes  sunt  isti:  .  .  .'  Livre  noir,  no.  102.  Richard  was  bishop  from 
1135  to  1142. 

For  an  example  of  this  from  the  year  1164  see  Livre  noir,  no.  49. 

Of  course  recognoscere  has  other  meanings,  being  applied  to  the  certification  of 
a  charter,  the  confession  of  a  criminal,  or  the  admission  of  another's  rights  on  the 
part  of  a  claimant,  but  none  of  these  senses  seems  to  fit  the  passage  in  question, 
where  the  idea  of  a  formal  declaration  of  fact  by  a  body  of  men  seems  clearly 
implied. 


226 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


sworn  verdict.^"  If  such  was  the  procedure  employed  in  this  case, 
it  has  a  special  interest  as  belonging  to  the  pontificate  of  Richard 
Fitz  Samson  and  thus  falling  within  the  reign  of  Henry  I.  How 
such  tribunals  came  to  decide  cases  of  this  sort  and  to  employ 
this  form  of  procedure  are  questions  that  cannot  be  answered  vmtil 
some  one  has  given  us  a  careful  study  of  the  Norman  ecclesiastical 
jurisdictions.  Indeed,  the  whole  subject  of  the  workings  of  the 
ecclesiastical  courts  in  Normandy  and  elsewhere  in  the  eleventh 
and  tweKth  centuries  is  an  important  field  of  investigation  and 
ought  to  prove  fruitful  for  the  history  of  the  transmission  of  the 
Frankish  inquisitio  to  later  times. 

In  one  direction  particularly  could  the  history  of  ecclesiastical 
procedure  in  Normandy  throw  important  Ught  upon  the  origins 
of  the  jury,  namely  with  respect  to  the  jury  of  presentment.  It 
has  more  than  once  been  remarked  that  when  this  makes  its  first 
appearance  imder  Henry  H,  it  is  as  part  of  the  procedure  of 
ecclesiastical  courts.  At  Falaise  in  1 1 59  it  was  ordained  that  no 
dean  should  accuse  any  one  without  the  testimony  of  reputable 
neighbors."^  At  Clarendon  in  1164  it  is  declared  that  laymen 
shall  be  accused  only  by  certain  and  lawful  accusers  before  the 

'  Ceterum,  dilecte  nobis  frater  Anulphe,  cancellarie  ecclesie  nostre,  arm  de 
hiis  que  ad  ius  personatus  tui  p)ertinent  in  capitulo  coram  Ricardo  episcopo  et 
fratribus  ageretur,  antiquorum  \irorum  et  eiusdem  episcopi  attestatione  recognitum 
est  ea  que  hie  subnotata  sunt  ex  institucione  Odonis  episcopi  et  tuonun  anteces- 
sorum  contLnua  possessione  ad  ius  personatus  tui  iure  perpetuo  pertinere.  .  .  . 
Hec  autem  omnia  in  capitulo  nostro  coram  Ricardo  episcopo,  Sansonis  filio,  et 
nobis  recognita  sunt  et  p>ostmodain  coram  successore  eius  altero  Ricardo  publica 
attestatione  firmata.'  Chevalier,  Ordinaire  de  I'eglise  cathedrale  de  Bayeux  (Paris, 
1902),  p.  419,  no.  51.  The  document  is  in  the  shape  of  a  letter  from  the  dean  and 
chapter  to  the  chancellor,  and  is  thus  less  formal  than  a  charter.  The  mention  of 
the  attestation  of  the  bishop  along  with  that  of  the  ancient  men  might  appear  to 
contradict  the  view  that  a  sworn  inquest  was  held,  but  the  last  sentence  makes  it 
plain  that  the  attestation  spoken  of  is  that  of  the  subsequent  bishop,  Richard  of 
Kent,  whUe  the  facts  had  been  recognized  under  Richard  Fitz  Samson. 

For  similar  examples  under  Hugh,  archbishop  of  Rouen  (1130-1164),  see  the 
cartulary  of  Saint-Georges  de  Bocher\Tlle  (MS.  Rouen  1227),  f.  48V;  and  original 
charters  of  Hugh  for  Fecamp  in  the  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieiu'e, /owJ^  Fecamp, 
series  Aizier  and  fitretat.  The  '  testimonium  vicinorum '  app)ears  in  the  court  of 
the  abbot  of  Preaux  i  loi-i  131 :  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  iii.  301 ;  the  recognition  by  ancient 
men,  in  Appendix  H,  no.  2. 

Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  180.  For  the  immediate  antecedents  of  these  measures, 
see  Appendix  I.  Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  c.  6. 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


227 


bishop,  and  in  the  absence  of  such  accusers  the  bishop  shall  ask 
the  sheriff  to  have  the  truth  of  the  matter  declared  by  twelve 
sworn  men  of  the  vicinage.  All  this  calls  to  mind  the  synodal  wit- 
nesses of  the  bishop's  court,  as  described  by  Regino  of  Priim  at 
the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century,  themselves  very  likely  another 
offshoot  of  the  Frankish  inquisitio  per  testes}^'^  What  we  should 
like  to  know  is  whether  the  testes  synodales  also  survived  in  the 
Frankish  lands  of  the  west  and  particularly  in  Normandy,  thus 
furnishing  Henry  II  with  the  suggestion  which  he  applied  to  deans 
and  archdeacons  who  used  more  arbitrary  methods.  Unfortu- 
nately no  one  has  sought  to  answer  these  questions  for  France, 
and  the  studies  of  the  genesis  of  the  later  canonical  procedure  in 
Italy  take  much  for  granted,  after  the  fashion  of  too  many  his- 
torians of  law."^  Here,  as  so  often,  the  Norman  evidence  is  too 
meager  and  fragmentary  to  fill  the  gap  in  our  knowledge.  At  one 
point,  however,  it  offers  a  suggestion.  In  the  curious  arrangement 
made  in  106 1  between  the  bishop  of  Avranches  and  the  abbot  of 
Mont-Saint-Michel,"*  the  men  of  the  Mount  had  complained 
that  they  were  subject  to  constant  smnmons  to  the  bishop's 
court  at  Avranches,  regardless  of  war  or  weather,  and  were  op- 
pressed by  the  demand  for  oaths  as  well  as  by  the  fines  and  for- 
feitures which  they  there  incurred : 

Cogebantur  enim  venire  Abrincas  ad  respondendum  de  quacunque  ac- 
cusatione  contra  christianitatem,  nec  excusare  poterat  eos  mare  insurgens 
nec  Britonimi  insidie  quia  preveniri  ac  provideri  poterant,  et  ita  sepe  in 
forifacta  et  emendationes  episcopales  incidebant  et  sepe  iuramentis  fatiga- 

See  Brunner,  Sckwurgerichte,  pp.  458-468;  id.,  Deutsche  Rechtsgeschichte, 
ii.  488-494;  Hinschius,  Kirchenrecht,  v.  425  ff.;  Pollock  and  Maitland,  i.  142,  152. 

See  particularly  Richard  Schmidt,  Die  Herkunfl  des  Inquisitionsprozesses ,  in 
Freibiirger  Festschrift  zum  50.  Regierungsjiibildum  Grh.  Friedrichs  I  (Leipzig,  1902); 
id.,  Kdnigsrechl,  Kirchenrecht,  tend  Stadtrecht  beitn  Aufbau  des  Inquisitionsprozesses , 
in  Festgabe  fiir  Rudolph  Sohm  (Munich,  1915);  Zechbauer,  Das  miltelalterliche 
Strafrecht  Siziliens  (Berlin,  1908),  pp.  168-247;  Max  Hoffmann,  Die  Stellung  des 
Konigs  von  Sizilien  nach  den  Assisen  von  Ariano  (Miinster,  1915),  pp.  84-92. 
Schmidt,  and  Niese,  Die  Gesetzgebung  der  normannischen  Dynastie  im  Regnum 
Siciliae  (Halle,  1910;  see  my  reviews  in  £.  H.  R.,  xxvi.  369-371;  A.H.  R.,  xvii.  177), 
are  much  too  sweeping  in  their  statements  as  to  the  Norman  origin  of  Sicilian  law, 
and  neither  of  them  has  attempted  a  study  of  the  docixmentary  evidence  for  the 
sworn  inquest  in  Sicily. 

MS.  LaL  14832,  f.  183V;  Migne,  cxlvii.  265;  cf.  supra,  Chapter  I,  note  137. 


228 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


bantur.  .  .  .  Episcopus  vero  prefatus,  ut  erat  animo  et  genere  nobilis, 
petitioni  abbatis  annuit  et  archidiaconum  suum  in  Monte  eum  fecit,  ita 
tamen  ut  quod  bene  non  faceret  vel  non  posset  episcopus  corrigeret  Abrincis 
et  ecclesiastic©  iuditio  terminaret.  De  coniugiis  autem  iUicitis,  si  qui  legales 
testes  procederent,  apud  episcopum  audirentur  et  per  sacramentum  ipsorum 
lege  dissolveretur  quod  contra  legem  presumptum  erat.  .  .  . 

The  jurisdiction  here  is  the  ordinary  bishop's  jurisdiction  over 
laymen  {contra  christianitatem) ,  by  the  new  arrangement  handed 
over  to  the  abbot  as  archdeacon  save  in  matrimonial  cases,  where 
legales  testes  are  specially  mentioned.  What  the  iuramenta  were 
is  not  specifically  stated,  but  it  would  seem  probable  that  the 
oaths  required  were,  at  least  in  part,  the  presentation  of  offenders 
by  Jama  puhlica.  If  this  be  the  correct  interpretation,  we  have 
a  Norman  link  midway  between  Regino  and  the  decrees  of 
Henry  II. 

Examples  of  the  use  of  the  sworn  inquest  in  baronial  courts 
meet  us  in  other  parts  of  Normandy  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
twelfth  century.  Thus  the  abbot  of  Saint-Wandrille  grants  a 
tenement  at  La  CroisiUe  to  be  held  "  as  it  has  been  recognized 
by  our  lawful  and  faithful  men,"  and  a  house  at  Caudebec 
wdth  appurtenant  rights  as  these  have  been  recognized  by  the 
oath  of  neighbors. Lawftil  men  are  used  for  the  division  of 
land     or  the  assignment  of  an  equivalent  holding, and  in  an 

'  Sciant  omnes  presentes  et  futuri  quod  ego  Walterus  abbas  S.  Wandregisilis 
concessi  Symoni  de  Cruciola  teneuram  suam  quam  in  eadem  villa  de  nobis  tenet 
iure  hereditario  possidendam  prout  per  iuridicos  et  fideles  homines  nostros  recognita 
fuerit.  .  .  .'  Copy  of  cartulary  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  iv.  2084. 
Theie  are  two  abbots  named  Walter  in  this  period,  one  1137-1150,  the  other  1178- 
1187. 

^  '  Notum  sit  omnibus  tam  presentibus  quam  futuris  quod  ego  Anfredus  (i  165- 
II 78)  abbas  S.  Wandregisilis  et  conventus  concedimus  WiUelmo  Anglico  quietudi- 
nem  domus  sue  ab  omni  consuetudine,  salvo  tamen  censu,  et  custodiam  vivarii 
nostri  de  Caldebecco  et  famulatum  eiusdem  ville  iure  hereditario,  que  ad  domiun 
ipsam  sicut  per  iuramentum  \dcinorum  recognitum  est  pertinent.  .  .  .'  Cartulary 
in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  G.  iii.  24,  with  list  of  jurors  at  end. 

'  Terram  de  RoseUo  sicut  est  previsa  et  ostensa  et  p>er  legales  homines  divisa 
Sancto  Martino  Sagii ':  Livre  blanc  of  Saint-Martin  de  Seez,f.  48V.  Cf.  the  division 
of  land  before  the  duke's  justices:  Round,  Calendar,  no.  607;  MS.  Rouen  1227,  f. 
135V;  and  an  undated  piece  of  the  twelfth  century  in  the  Archives  of  the  Calvados, 
joTids  Saint-Desir  de  Lisieux:  '  De  hoc  autem  requirimus  dominiun  regem  et 
iustitias  eius  quod  nobis  haberi  faciant  intuitum  curie.' 

^  '  Tantumdem  terre  ad  valentiam  pro  ipsa  terra  arbitrio  liberorum  virorum  ': 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


229 


agreement  for  the  mortgage  of  a  house  at  Rouen  it  is  stipulated 
that  the  cost  of  repairs  shall  be  verified  by  the  view  of  lawful 
neighbors.  Henry,  abbot  of  Fecamp,  and  Robert,  count  of 
Meulan,  make  an  agreement  for  a  general  inquest  respecting  their 
several  rights,  six  jurors  being  chosen  by  each  to  declare  the  truth 
with  respect  thereto ;  and  a  similar  inquest  by  the  men  of 
Quillebeuf  and  Le  Marais- Vernier  is  related  by  the  abbot  of 
Jumieges  and  Henry  de  Longchamp.i^s  Robert  Bertram  the 
younger  even  admits  that  he  caused  his  men  to  render  a  verdict 
regarding  a  presentation  '  not  of  right  but  by  his  own  might  and 
force.'  1" 

Of  these  baronial  cases  the  most  interesting,  as  regards  both 
date  and  procedure,  is  one  to  which  Valin  has  called  attention  in 
the  cartulary  of  Preaux.'^*  Two  knights  of  Etreville-en-Roiunois, 
Roger  de  Lesprevier  and  Richard,  son  of  Humphrey  the  priest, 
claimed  in  lay  fee  the  dwellings  of  the  parish  priests  and  other 
appurtenances  of  the  church,  whereas  the  abbot  of  Preaux  claimed 
them  in  ahns.  A  term  was  set  before  the  archbishop  and  the 
count  of  Meulan,  the  lay  lord,  at  which  both  parties  "  placed 
themselves  on  the  verdict  and  oath  of  lawful  men,  to  the  niunber 

cartulary  of  Saint- Andre-en-Goiiff em,  in  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  ff.  6iv,  62, 
nos.  273  f.  (1175). 

^*  '  Sciant  tam  presentes  quam  posteri  quod  anno  incamationis  dominice 
.M°.C°.LX°.IIII°.  Ricardus  de  Herburvilla  invadiavit  Simoni  AngUco  domum  suam 
de  atrio  Sancti  Amandi  concessu  uxoris  sue  et  heredum  suorum  pro  Ax.  et  .x.  solidis 
Andegavensium  usque  ad  octo  annos  tali  conditione  quod  si  Simon  aliquid  de  sue 
in  domo  reficienda  per  visum  legalium  vicinonmi  suorum  expendiderit,  Simon  tail- 
liabit  Ulud  in  taillia  sua  et  Ricardus  ei  solvet.  .  .  .'  Original  in  Archives  of  the 
Seine-Inferieure,  fonds  Saint-Amand. 

Fecamp  cartulary  (MS.  Rouen  1207),  f.  36V;  extracts  in  La  Roque,  iii.  50; 
Du  Cange,  under  stalaria. 

Le  Prevost,  Eure,  ii.  375;  Vernier,  no.  194;  original  in  Archives  of  the  Seine- 
Inferieure, /ow^/s  Jumieges  (1165-11Q8). 

'  Licet  in  prescriptis  ecclesiis  instinctu  diabolico  seu  personali  odio  vel  etiam 
propria  maUtia  ductus  diocesiano  episcopo  personam  ahquam  aUquando  presenta- 
verim  et  super  earundem  ecclesiarum  presentationibus  in  curia  mea  recognitionem 
iniustam  non  de  iure  sed  vi  et  potestate  mea  per  homines  meos  fieri  fecerim,  et  per 
recognitionem  tunc  temporis  factam  dictarum  ecclesiarum  quas  prior  de  Sancta 
Maria  de  iure  et  donatione  predecessorum  meorum  antea  habuerat  michi  tam 
iniuste  vendicaverim.  .  .  .'  Quasi-original  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inf6rieure, 
Jonds  Saint-Ouen. 

Valin,  p.  264,  no.  ix;  cf.  p.  200  f.;  and  Le  Provost,  Eure,  ii.  63. 


230 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


of  eight,  who  were  sworn  "  and  proceeded  to  view  the  holdings 
in  dispute.  Their  decision  in  favor  of  the  abbey  was  opposed  by 
the  knights,  and  a  day  was  fixed  in  the  count's  court  at  Brionne 
before  William  Fitz  Robert  and  Robert  de  Neufbourg  as  his 
judges,  when  the  jurors  appeared  to  defend  their  verdict  and 
Preaux  was  put  in  possession  of  the  property  as  alms.  When 
Richard  threatened  the  abbot,  he  was  locked  up  in  the  tower  of 
Beaimiont,  and  only  released  at  another  session  of  the  court  at 
Montfort,  where  he  agreed  to  do  homage  and  service  to  the  abbot 
for  the  holding.  Now  all  of  this  is  anterior  to  the  retirement  of 
Robert  of  Neufbourg  in  1 159  and  quite  possibly  to  the  crusade 
of  1 147,  so  that  it  falls  at  the  latest  in  the  early  years  of  Henry  II 
and  shows,  like  the  contemporary  case  from  Bayeux,  that  the 
'  fertile  ground  of  consent '  was  already  well  prepared  for  his 
assizes. 

Some  measure  of  the  progress  made  in  Normandy  by  the  mid- 
dle of  the  twelfth  century  in  the  development  of  the  recognition, 
in  respect  to  definiteness  of  form  as  well  as  frequency  of  employ- 
ment, may  be  got  by  examining  the  use  made  of  the  sworn  inquest 
in  the  neighboring  county  of  Anjou  under  Geoffrey  Plantagenet 
and  his  father  Fulk."^  Although  the  older  methods  of  trial  find 

'  In  hoc  autem  stabilito  die  ecclesia  Pratellensis  et  predicti  milites  miserunt 
se  in  veredicto  et  iuramento  legalium  hominum  qui  octo  fuerunt  et  omnes  iura- 
verunt.' 

Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  322,  ii.  174.  Valin's  argument  that  Richard's  journey 
to  Jerusalem  mentioned  in  the  document  is  the  Second  Crusade,  is  not  decisive; 
Reginald  of  Saint- Valery,  for  example,  went  to  Palestine  in  1158  {ibid.,  i.  316.  ii. 
166).  The  other  judge,  William  Fitz  Robert,  is  found  with  Galeran  of  Meulan  as 
early  as  1143  (Round,  no.  380). 

For  another  instance  of  Robert  de  Neufbourg  in  the  court  of  the  count  of  Meulan, 
see  supra.  Chapter  V,  note  58,  where  the  presence  also  of  the  bishop  of  fivreux  indi- 
cates that  they  were  sitting  there  as  ducal  justices. 

On  the  courts  of  Anjou  see  particularly  C.  J.  Beautemps-Beaupre,  Recherches 
sur  les  jurididions  de  1' Anjou  et  du  Maine  pendant  la  periodefeodale  (Paris,  1890  fF.), 
forming  the  second  part  of  his  Coutiimes  et  institutions  de  V Anjou  et  du  M aine.  This 
elaborate  work  deals  mainly  with  the  later  period.  The  account  of  Angevin  law 
during  the  feudal  period  which  the  author  planned  was  left  unfinished  at  his  death; 
cf.  d'Espinay,  Le  droit  de  1' Anjou  avant  les  coutumes  d'apres  les  notes  de  M.  Beau- 
temps-Beaupre (Angers,  1901).  For  the  judicial  institutions  of  the  eleventh  century 
there  is  a  useful  study  by  Halphen  in  the  Revue  historique  (1901),  Ixxvii,  279-307. 


mE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY  2^1 

abundant  illustration  in  Angevin  charters,  one  is  at  once  struck 
with  the  rare  appearance  of  anything  resembling  the  Norman 
inquests.  The  less  complete  development  of  the  administrative 
system  in  Anjou,  and  the  fact  that  in  this  period  the  count  gen- 
erally presided  in  person  in  his  court,  may  serve  to  explain  the 
absence  of  such  writs  as  are  found  in  Normandy;  but  any  men- 
tion of  inquests  is  rare,  and  in  such  accounts  as  we  have  they  are 
hard  to  distinguish  from  other  forms  of  procedure,  to  which  they 
sometimes  seem  only  accessory.  The  cases,  too,  in  which  anything 
Uke  the  sworn  inquest  is  applied  are  fiscal,  concerning  the  count's 
forests,  his  rights  of  justice,  or  his  feudal  dues.  Thus  in  a  con- 
troversy between  his  foresters  and  the  monks  of  Saint-Aubin 
Geoffrey  calls  together  his  foresters  and  segrayers  of  the  district 
and  adjures  "those  who  had  been  brought  up  from  infancy  in  the 
aforesaid  forest  and  knew  the  facts  well  "  to  declare  faithfully  and 
impartially  the  ancient  custom  of  the  forest,  neither  relinquishing 
the  count's  right  to  the  monks  nor  assigning  the  monks'  right  to 
him.'^2  In  another  case  where  the  matter  in  dispute  concerned  the 
count's  right  of  fodrium  on  a  piece  of  land  belonging  to  the  abbey 
of  Saint-Serge,  Geoffrey  referred  the  matter  to  his  seneschal,  who 
ordered  the  local  seneschal  to  take  vavassors  of  the  town  with  him 
upon  the  land  and  render  a  just  judgment;  but  the  question  was 
finally  determined  by  the  oath  of  a  witness  produced  by  the 
monks."'  Sometimes  we  find  the  count  selecting  men  to  render  a 
verdict  on  the  matter  at  issue  in  a  way  that  suggests  a  jury  of 
arbitration,  as  in  a  case  from  Fulk's  reign  touching  the  count's 
rights  of  justice  on  certain  lands.  The  owner  of  the  land  finds 
seventy-three  good  men  of  Angers  that  know  the  truth  of  the 

None  of  these  writers  discusses  the  sworn  inquest.  Cf.  the  sketch  of  Angevin  in- 
stitutions in  Powicke,  Loss  of  Normandy,  ch.  ii. 

29  May  1 1 29:  Bertrand  de  Broussillon,  Carlulaire  de  Vabbaye  de  Saint- 
Aubin  d^ Angers,  ii.  408,  no.  982;  B,  C,  xxxvi.  426,  no.  28.  Cf.  Beautemps- 
Beaupr6,  i.  131,  note,  143,  note.  For  a  similar  case  at  Vend6me  see  Du  Cange, 
Glossarium,  under  j.  Secrelarius  (ed.  Favre,  vii.  387). 

^  MS.  Lat.  5446,  f.  295,  no.  403  (Gaignieres's  copies  from  the  cartulary  of 
Saint-Serge).  Cf.  Beautemps-Beaupre,  i.  203,  note,  where  the  date  is  fixed  between 
31  March  1150  and  7  September  1151.  For  a  somewhat  later  case  of  declaration 
of  custom,  involving  the  right  to  levy  procuratio,  see  C.  Chevalier,  Carlulaire  de 
Vabbaye  de  Noyers  (Tours,  1872),  p.  651,  no,  615, 


232 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


matter,  and  gives  the  count  their  names ;  when  they  have  all  ap- 
peared in  court,  Fulk  selects  twelve,  who  are  ordered  to  swear 
that  they  will  not  conceal  the  truth  for  love  or  hatred.^^  In  other 
cases,  however,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  arbiters  were  neces- 
sarily neighbors  or  had  any  special  knowledge  of  the  facts,  so  that 
they  would  seem  to  have  acted  as  representing  the  court  rather 
than  the  countryside."^  On  the  whole,  while  these  scanty  in- 
stances from  Anjou  show  that  the  verdict  of  neighbors  was 
occasionally  sought  in  fiscal  matters  and  that  a  sort  of  jury  of 
arbitration  might  sometimes  be  called  by  the  count,  there  is 
nothing  to  indicate  that  such  modes  of  procedure  were  common, 
clearly  defined,  or  well  understood.  Compared  with  such  rudi- 
mentary institutions  as  these,  it  is  evident  that  the  Norman 
recognitions  of  the  same  period  represent  an  advanced  stage  in  the 
evolution  of  the  jury,  and  that  no  share  can  be  ascribed  to  Anjou 
in  its  development  in  Normandy."^ 

The  sworn  inquest  is  also  found  in  the  Norman  kingdom  of 
southern  Italy  and  SicUy,  where  the  judicial  organization  was  in 
many  respects  similar  to  that  of  Normandy  and  England,'^'  and 
recent  writers  are  prone  to  assume  that  the  Sicilian  jury  was  a 
direct  importation  from  Normandy."*  While  it  is  true  that  no 
examples  have  been  found  in  the  South  before  the  Norman  con- 
quest, it  is  also  true  that  the  information  for  this  period  is  extra- 
ordinarily scanty,  while  we  have  also  to  bear  in  mind  the 

^  Beautemps-Beaupre,  i.  117,  note  G. 

For  instances  of  this  sort  see  Marchegay,  Archives  d' Anjou,  i.  409,  no.  66;  iii. 
66,  no.  87  (cf.  Beautemps-Beaupre,  i.  88,  117,  141);  Beautemps-Beaupre,  i.  116, 
note  B,  136,  note  B;  Cartidaire  de  S .-Pierre-de-la-Cmir  {Archives  historiqms  du 
Maine,  iv),  no.  16.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  Cartidaire  d'Aze  {ibid.,  iii),  no.  20, 
the  bishop  of  Angers  puts  himself  on  the  verdict  of  three  priests  (1130-1135).  For 
fiscal  inquests  in  Maine  under  Henry  II,  see  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  200,  580. 

As  has  been  suggested  by  Powicke,  E.  H.  R.,  xxii.  15;  and  Prentout,  La 
Normandie  (Paris,  1910),  p.  57. 

See  my  discussion  of  the  judicial  organization  in  £.F.i?.,xxvi.  641-651  (191 1); 
and  Miss  E.  Jamison's  criticism  in  her  monograph  on  The  Norman  Administration 
of  Apulia  and  Capita  {Papers  of  tlie  British  School  at  Rome,  vi,  1913),  which  con- 
tains a  useful  list  of  cases  in  the  royal  courts. 

E.  Mayer,  Italienische  Verfassungsgeschickte  (Leipzig,  1909),  i.  258;  Niese, 
Die  Gesetzgehung  der  normannischm  Dynastie,  p.  iq6;  and  the  papers  of  Schmidt 
mentioned  above,  note  uS. 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


233 


possibilities  of  derivation  from  the  fiscal  measures  of  the  later  em- 
pire as  well  as  from  the  procedure  of  the  Frankish  missi  in  Italy. 
In  general  the  legal  procedure  of  the  South,  under  the  influence  of 
Roman  law,  makes  free  use  of  witnesses  and  written  records,  so 
that  it  is  difficult  in  many  of  the  documents  to  distinguish  the 
individual  or  party  witnesses  from  the  collective  jury.  The  testi- 
mony of  neighbors,  especially  aged  men,  was  particularly  valued 
in  determining  boundaries,  which  were  regularly  fixed  by  their 
evidence,  though  not  always  in  a  way  that  clearly  denotes  a  real 
inquest.  Examples  of  the  use  of  old  men  of  the  region  in  this 
indefinite  fashion  are  found  at  Mileto  in  1091,^^^  at  Squillace  in 
1098,""  and  in  various  Sicilian  cases  of  the  twelfth  century,  where 
it  is  regularly  stated  that  Saracens  and  Christians  served  together 
in  this  capacity."'  In  the  more  specific  account  of  a  boimdary 
dispute  between  Grumo  and  Bitetto  in  1136,  the  boni  senes 
homines  of  Bitetto  were  called  unus  ante  alium,  although  at  the 
end  they  took  a  collective  oath  as  to  the  term  of  possession. 
In  1 1 58,  near  Bari,  what  looks  like  a  collective  verdict  has  to  be 
confirmed  by  a  party  oath  of  twelve  iuratores}*^  On  the  other 
hand  an  immistakable  inquest  appears  in  1140  at  Atina,  where 
King  Roger  orders  his  chamberlain  to  make  diligent  inquiry  by 
suitable  men  concerning  boundaries  and  royal  rights,  which  were 
sworn  on  the  Gospels  by  twelve  of  the  older  men  of  the  city.'*^ 
Under  William  I  the  phrase  isti  iurati  dixerunt  points  to  a  sworn 

Capialbi,  Memorie  per  servire  alia  storia  della  santa  chiesa  tnilitese  (Naples, 
183s),  P-  136. 

i"**  Regit  Napoletani  Arckivii  Monumenta,  v.  245. 

1"  Cusa,  7  diplomi  greet  ed  arabi  di  Sicilia,  i.  306,  317,  403;  Garufi,  I  documenti 
inediti  dell'  epoca  normanna  in  Sicilia  {Documenti  per  la  storia  di  Sicilia,  xviii), 
nos.  24,  51,  61,  62,  105;  id.,  in  Archivio  slorico  per  la  Sicilia  orientale,  ix.  349  (1912); 
Caspar,  Roger  II,  Regesten,  nos.  9,  81,  145,  232. 

Garufi,  /  documenti,  no.  13;  Caspar,  p.  308,  note  2;  Jamison,  no.  5. 

Del  Giudice,  Codice  diplomatico  del  regno  di  Carlo  I,  i.  app.  no.  9;  Jamison, 
no.  47. 

'  Precepit  statim  Ebulo  de  Mallano  regio  camerario  ut  omnia  iura  regia 
necnon  et  fines  tenimentorum  civitatis  eiusdem  diligenter  investigaret  et  per  viros 
idoneos  Lnquireret  solicite.  Qui  iussis  regiis  obtemperare  paratus,  iurare  fecit  ad 
sancta  Dei  evangelia  duodecim  homines  de  antiquioribus  civitatis  ut  ea  que  idem 
dominus  rex  preceperat  fideliter  intimarent,  quorum  nomina  hec  sunt. .  .  .'  Tauleri, 
Memorie  istoriche  dell'  antica  ciltd  d'  Atina  (Naples,  1702),  p.  92;  Caspar,  no.  128; 
Jamison,  no.  9. 


234 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


inquest  in  a  dispute  touching  the  boundaries  of  the  dioceses  of 
Patti  and  Cefalu/^^  and  a  sworn  inquest  is  held  by  the  master 
chamberlain  of  Calabria  to  determine  the  losses  of  the  church  of 
Carbone."®  In  the  same  reign  we  find  a  clear  accoimt  of  a  jury  of 
eight  men  who  are  sworn  before  the  king's  chamberlain  to  tell  the 
truth  respecting  the  possessions  of  San  Bartolomeo  di  Carpi- 
neto.'*^  In  1183  justiciars  of  William  II  hold  a  formal  in- 
quest to  recover  lost  portions  of  the  king's  domain  in  the  vicinity 
of  Gravina.^*^  It  is  particularly  under  William  II  that  we  should 
expect  to  find  analogies  to  the  Anglo-Norman  assizes,"^  but 
nothing  of  the  kind  has  been  brought  to  light  in  the  occasional 
writs  that  have  reached  us  from  this  king  or  his  officers,""  and 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  recognition  in  the  Norman  kingdom 
of  Sicily  was  anything  more  than  an  occasional  expedient  for  the 
assistance  of  the  fisc  or  of  some  favored  church.  The  inquests  in 
criminal  cases  under  Frederick  II  raise  a  different  set  of  problems 
which  lie  beyond  the  hmits  of  the  present  inquiry. 

If  now  we  turn  to  England,  we  find  an  almost  complete  parallel 
to  the  Norman  documents.  From  the  time  of  the  Domesday  sur- 
vey examples  are  extant  of  fiscal  inquests  on  a  large  scale,  while 
specific  royal  writs  prescribe  the  determination  of  particular  cases 
by  sworn  inquest."^  Jurors  may  be  used  to  render  a  verdict  upon 
a  great  variety  of  questions,  even  to  the  marking  ofif  of  thirty 
solidate  of  land,"^  and  they  also  appear  in  baronial  jurisdictions, 

Garufi,  /  documenti,  no.  34  (11 59). 
1**  Minieri  Riccio,  Saggio  di  codice  diplomatico  di  Napoli,  i.  283;  Jamison,  no.  58 
(1163). 

Ughelli,  Italia  Sacra,  x.  app.  369;  Jamison,  no.  50. 

Printed  by  me,  from  the  original  in  the  Archives  of  La  Cava,  in  E.  H.  R., 
xxvi.  654,  note  191.  Less  definite  examples  from  this  reign  are  in  Stttdi  e  documenti  di 
storia  e  diritto,  xxii.  278  (1178);  Tromby,  Storia  dell'  ordine  cartusiano,  iv,  p.  cbd. 

The  first  mention  of  an  assize  seems  to  be  the  phrase  '  ante  assisam  domini 
regis'  in  a  document  of  1155:  Codice  diplomatico  barese,  v.  191.  The  so-called 
Vatican  assizes  of  King  Roger  do  not  meet  us  with  this  title  imtil  later. 

See  my  discussion,  E.  H.  R.,  xxvi.  444-447  (1911),  where  certain  parallels 
are  pointed  out  with  the  Anglo-Norman  writs.  A  mandatum  of  William  II,  since 
pubUshed  {Quellen  und  Forschungen  des  preussischen  Instiluts,  xvi.  30),  should  be 
added  to  those  there  cited. 

"1  See  Sir  Francis  Palgrave,  Rise  of  the  English  Commonwealth,  ii,  p.  clxxvi  £f . ; 
Bigelow,  Placita  Anglo-Normannica;  Pollock  and  Maitland,  i.  143. 
"2  Infra,  Appendix  F,  no.  13. 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


235 


as  when  the  bishop  of  Lincoln  orders  a  declaration  by  the  men  of 
Banbury  whether  a  piece  of  land  was  once  part  of  his  demesne. 
If  we  examine  more  closely  the  first  ten  years  of  Henry  II,  we  find 
the  same  practices  continuing.  The  general  measures  for  the 
recovery  of  the  royal  demesne  were  carried  out,  it  appears,  by  a 
sworn  inquest  throughout  the  kingdom. The  prior  and  monks 
of  Canterbury  are  to  hold  land  as  they  proved  their  right  by  the 
oath  of  the  lawful  men  of  Kent;'**  the  nuns  of  Mailing,  as  it  was 
recognized  by  the  lawful  men  of  the  same  county.'*^  The  rights  of 
the  church  of  Ely  in  the  port  of  Orford  are  to  be  sworn  by  the  law- 
ful men  of  five  and  one-half  hundreds.'"  Twenty-four  men  have 
sworn  as  to  the  height  of  the  mills  of  Canterbury  ia  Henry  I's 
time;  twenty-four  of  the  older  men  of  Berks  are  to  swear  in  the 
county  court  concerning  the  market  of  Abingdon  at  the  same 
epoch.'**  Before  the  sheriff  and  archdeacon  twenty-four  men 
swear  as  to  the  advowson  of  Saint  Peter's,  Derby.'^"  In  Lan- 
cashire land  is  delimited  by  the  oath  of  thirty  men  in  accordance 
with  royal  writ.'^'  The  burgesses  of  Guildford  are  to  have  their 
liberties  and  customs  as  these  have  been  recognized  before  the 
king  and  his  justices  in  the  county  court  there  held.'^^  g,  series 
of  records  from  Rievaulx  we  have  the  writ  of  Henry  ordering 
his  sheriff  and  ministers  of  Yorkshire  to  have  the  waste  below 
Pickering  recognized  by  the  lawful  men  of  the  wapentake  and 
forest;  the  report,  with  the  names  of  the  jurors;  and  the  royal 
confirmation  of  the  land  to  the  abbey  as  sworn  to  by  the  wapen- 
take and  recognized  before  the  king's  justices  in  the  county  court 

1^  Eynsham  Cartulary,  i.  41,  no.  isa  (11 23-1 148).   Cf.  the  writ  of  Roger  of  Salis- 
bury published  by  Massingbeid,  in  Associated  Architectural  Societies,  Reports  and 
Papers,  xxvii;  and  one  of  Henry  I  for  Nostell  priory,  given  by  the  bishop  of  fivreux 
at  Evreux,  in  W.  Farrer,  Early  Yorkshire  Charters,  no.  501. 
Gesta  Abbalum  S.  Albani,  i.  123. 
166  Delisle-Berger,  no.  192. 

Calendar  0}  Charter  Rolls,  v.  59,  no.  19;  cf.  p.  58,  no.  15,  which  may  be  some- 
what later. 

B.     C,  Ixix.  550,  no.  13.  168  Delisle-Berger,  no.  103. 

16'  Chronicon  Mcnasterii  de  Abingdon,  ii.  228;  Bigelow,  Placita,  p.  200.  Cf. 
Chronicon,  ii.  221;  Bigelow,  p.  203. 
"0  E.  H.  R.,  xxxii.  47. 
1*1  W.  Farrer,  Lancashire  Pipe  Rolls,  p.  310. 
1"*  Register  of  St.  Osmund,  i.  238. 


236 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


at  York.i^'  Before  1 168  we  find  the  king  ordering  an  inquest  in  a 
baronial  court  in  a  writ  to  the  earl  and  countess  of  Chester  com- 
manding them  to  have  recognized  by  their  barons  of  Lincohi- 
shire  whether  Amulf  Fitz  Peter  lost  the  land  of  Hunnington  by- 
judgment  of  the  court  of  Henry  I.^^ 

The  fullest  set  of  dociunents  which  we  have  from  this  period 
concerns  a  nmnber  of  recognitions  held  to  ascertain  the  rights  of 
the  bishop  of  Lincoln,  as  regards  his  justice,  warren,  burgage,  and 
various  local  privileges. The  king's  writs  are  for  the  most  part 
addressed  to  the  justices  and  sheriff  of  Lincolnshire,  although  the 
sheriffs  of  Nottingham  and  Derby  are  also  mentioned,  and  in  cer- 
tain of  them  the  county  court  is  specifically  indicated  as  the  place 
where  the  recognition  is  held.  Thus  in  one  instance  the  bishop  is 
to  have  his  right  of  ferry  at  Newton  on  Trent  as  recognized  in 
comitatu,^^^  in  another  the  church  of  Chesterfield  is  to  have  its 
liberties,  customs,  and  tenements  "  as  recognized  by  the  lawful 
men  of  the  hallmoot  of  the  wapentake."  The  reeves  of  Lincoln 
are  directed  "  without  delay  to  have  recognized  by  the  oaths  of 
the  more  ancient  and  lawful  men  of  the  city,  in  the  presence  of  the 
sheriff  of  Lincolnshire  and  at  his  summons,  the  liberties  which  the 
bishops  of  Lincoln  had  in  their  land  and  burgage  at  Lincoln  in  the 
time  of  King  Henry  my  grandfather,  and  what  liberties  the  clerks 
of  the  city  had  at  the  same  time;  and  as  it  shall  have  been  recog- 
nized, so  without  delay  "  they  "  shall  cause  Robert,  bishop  of 

1*  Chartulary  of  Rievaulx  (Surtees  Society),  nos.  189,  205,  206;  W.  Fairer, 
Early  Yorkshire  Charters,  nos.  401-403. 

'  H.  rex  Anglorum  et  dux  Normannorum  et  Aquitanorum  et  comes  Andega- 
vorum  Hugoni  comiti  Cestrie  et  Matilde  comitisse  salutem.  Precipio  vobis  quod 
sine  dilatione  et  iuste  faciatis  recognosci  per  barones  vestros  de  Lincolne  siia  si 
Amulfus  filius  Petri  terram  de  Hunintona  in  curia  H.  regis  avi  mei  iudicio  amisit 
et  Lucia  comitissa  et  Ran.  comes  Cestrie  Hlarn  terram  sanctimonialibus  de  Stikes- 
walda  in  elemosinam  dederint.  Quod  si  ita  recognitum  fuerit,  faciatis  eas  bene 
et  in  pace  et  iuste  tenere.  Et  nisi  feceritis  iusticia  mea  faciat.  Teste  M.  Bis[set] 
dapifero  meo  apud  Gloec'  Printed,  from  the  original  in  the  possession  of  Lady 
Waterford,  in  11  Historical  MSS.  Commission's  Report,  Appendix  vii.  59.  The 
letter  of  Earl  William  of  Roumare  which  follows  fixes  the  date  as  anterior  to  1168. 

1"  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  142,  217-219,  380;  E.  H.  R.,  xxiv.  308,  no.  23;  Calendar 
of  Charter  Rolls,  iv.  no,  no.  15, 141-145,  nos.  21, 23, 37,  where  various  related  docu- 
ments are  also  given. 

Calendar  of  Charier  Rolls,  iv.  110,  no.  15. 

Ibid.,  iv.  141,  no.  21. 


THE  EARLY  NORMAN  JURY 


Lincoln,  and  his  men  of  Lincoln  and  the  clerks  of  the  city  to  have 
all  those  liberties,  without  the  exaction  of  any  new  customs." 

Here  the  parallelism  to  the  Bayeux  writs,  the  chief  contem- 
porary group  in  Normandy,  is  close  and  striking,  and  it  should  be 
noted  that  three  of  the  writs  ordering  inquests  for  Lincoln  are 
issued  at  Rouen  and  attested  by  the  duke's  Norman  justiciar, 
Rotrou  of  Evreux,^^^  so  that  we  should  expect  close  resemblances 
in  procedure.  Two  notable  points  of  difference,  however,  stand 
out.  In  the  first  place,  the  Enghsh  writs  assume  as  the  normal 
basis  for  their  execution  the  sheriff  and  the  county  court,  while  in 
Normandy  no  such  assembly  is  mentioned.  Already  the  sworn 
inquest  has  entered  into  that  intimate  relation  to  the  local  courts 
upon  which  its  future  history  and  its  future  importance  in  Eng- 
land are  to  depend.  In  the  second  place,  the  English  writs  make 
no  mention  of  a  royal  assize:  secundum  assisiam  meant  is  foimd 
only  in  Normandy,  where  the  word  assize  occurs  four  times  before 
1 159,  while  in  no  EngUsh  docmnent  has  it  been  found  in  this  sense 
before  1164.'™  It  is  of  course  possible  that  instances  may  come  to 
light  in  England,  it  may  even  be  argued  that  the  procedure  was 
already  so  well  established  there  that  reference  to  the  royal  assize 
was  no  longer  necessary;  but  these  remain  at  present  mere  possi- 
bilities. The  evidence  for  assizes  before  the  Constitutions  of 
Clarendon  is  Norman,  not  Enghsh;  and,  for  the  present  at  least, 
Normandy  can  claim  priority,  as  regards  both  the  term  and  the 
procedure  which  it  denotes. 

The  sworn  inquest  was  introduced  into  England  from  Nor- 
mandy soon  after  the  Conquest.  Its  history  thereafter  in  the  two 
countries  is  for  some  time  essentially  the  same,  namely  as  a  pre- 
rogative procedure  for  the  sovereign  and  for  those  with  whom  he 
shares  its  benefits  in  particular  instances.  Then  the  exceptional 
becomes  general,  first  for  one  class  of  cases  and  then  for  another."^ 
In  England  the  first  clear  example  of  this  change  is  found  in  the 

1"'  Calendar  of  Charter  Rolls,  iv.  142,  no.  23. 
1^'  Delisle-Berger,  nos.  217-219. 

The  assizes  cited  by  Bigelow,  History  of  Procedure,  p.  124,  from  the  early 
Pipe  Rolls  denote  evidently  the  assisa  comilatus.    Not  until  1166  do  these  rolls 
use  the  word  in  the  sense  of  royal  legislation. 
PoUock  and  Maitland,  i,  144. 


238 


NORMAN  INSTITUTIONS 


assize  utrum  of  1 164.  In  Normandy  there  is  evidence  earlier,  in 
the  assizes  of  Geojffrey  and  Henry  to  which  they  refer  their 
officers  on  behalf  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux,  and  in  the  assize  upon 
which  William  Fitz  Thetion  places  himself  against  Saint-Etienne. 
If  we  cannot  be  certain  just  what  these  assizes  were,  we  can  at 
least  see  in  them  some  systematic  extension,  by  ducal  act,  of  the 
procedure  by  recognition  in  cases  concerning  land.  To  these  we 
must  add  the  suit  brought  by  Osmund  Vasce  in  1159,  based  as  it 
clearly  was  upon  some  regular  method  of  procedure  open  to  ordi- 
nary Htigants,  and  the  ordinance  of  Falaise  in  the  same  year 
respecting  the  accusing  jury.  Thus  Normandy  is  the  home  of  the 
jury,  not  only  in  the  sense  that  it  is  the  source  of  the  sworn  in- 
quest so  far  as  England  is  concerned,  but  also  as  the  land  where  we 
first  find  it  employed  as  a  regular  procedure  to  which  suitors  can 
appeal  as  a  matter  of  right  and  on  which  the  indi\adual  can  rely 
as  a  protection  against  arbitrary  accusation.  Both  coimtries  were 
then  to  share  in  its  rapid  extension  to  new  types  of  cases  by 
Henry  II.  England  alone  was  to  bring  about  that  combination  of 
the  royal  inquest  with  the  popular  courts  which  was  to  give  the 
jury  its  unique  position  in  the  development  of  individual  Ub- 
erty  and  representative  institutions.  Where  Normandy  sowed, 
England  and  all  English-speaking  lands  were  to  reap. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  A 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  SOURCES  OF  EARLY 
NORMAN  HISTORY  ' 

The  fundamental  difficulty  which  confronts  all  students  of  ducal 
Normandy  is  the  paucity  of  documentary  evidence.  The  imposing 
series  of  Norman  historians  —  Dudo,  William  of  Jumieges,  William  of 
Poitiers,  Ordericus  Vitalis,  Wace,  Robert  of  Torigni  —  long  served  to 
conceal  this  fact  in  the  pages  of  the  modern  writers  who,  with  greater 
or  less  skill,  paraphrased  them  into  the  conventional  histories;  but  the 
inadequacy  of  even  the  best  of  chroniclers  becomes  apparent  as  soon  as 
one  attacks  any  of  the  fundamental  problems  of  institutions  or  social 
conditions.  For  the  tenth  century  documentary  materials  never 
existed,^  at  least  in  any  such  abundance  as  in  the  neighboring  regions 
of  Anjou,  Brittany,  or  Flanders;  for  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries 
what  once  existed  has  in  large  measure  disappeared.  It  is  indeed  prob- 
able that  such  sources  were  always  less  numerous  in  Normandy  than 
in  England,  where  the  documentary  habit  had  not  been  broken  in  the 
tenth  century,  and  where  the  Norman  Conquest  itself  produced  a 
monument  like  the  Domesday  Survey  which  was  from  the  nature  of 
the  case  unique;  but  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  in  the  twelfth 
century  the  records  of  the  central  administration  were  notably  different 
on  the  two  sides  of  the  Channel  or  that  the  body  of  charters  and  writs 
showed  any  such  disparity  as  at  present.  In  the  absence  of  anything 

*  See  especially  Delisle,  £tude  sur  Vagriculture  el  la  classe  agricole  en  Normandie 
(fivreux,  1851),  pp.  xlv-li;  the  introduction  to  his  Cartulairc  normatid  de  Philippe- 
Augusle,  Louis  VIII,  Saint  Louis,  et  Philippe-lc-IIardi,  M.  A.  N.,  xvi  (1852);  his 
Catalogtte  des  actes  de  Philippe-Augtiste  (Paris,  1856),  pp.  vi-liii,  525-569;  and  his 
Recueil  des  acles  de  Henri  II,  introduction,  pp.  v-xiii.  H.  Stein,  Bibliographic  ginirale 
des  cartulaires  fran(ais  (Paris,  igoj),  lists  most  of  the  Norman  cartularies,  not 
always  accurately  (cf.  my  review,  A.  II.  R.,  xiii.  322-324).  An  excellent  survey 
of  the  materials  in  the  departmental  archives  is  given  in  the  &al  g£n£ral  par  fonds 
des  archives  diparlementalcs;  ancien  rigitne  et  piriode  rivolutionnaire  (Paris,  1903). 
Cf.  also  H.  Prentout,  La  Normandie  (Paris,  1910),  pp.  21-24.  A  convenient  sum- 
mary by  dioceses  and  religious  establishments  is  given  by  Dom  Besse,  in  the  Ab- 
bayes  et  prieuris  de  I'ancienne  France,  vii  {Archives  de  la  Fratue  monaslique,  xvii, 
1914). 

*  Cf.  supra,  Chapter  I,  note  4. 

241 


242 


APPENDIX  A 


corresponding  to  Domesday,  Glanvill,  or  the  Dialogue  on  the  Eocchequer, 
the  charters  acquire  an  added  importance  in  Normandy,  and  it  is  their 
loss  and  destruction  which  the  historian  has  chiefly  to  mourn. 

The  loss  of  Norman  records  can  be  laid  to  no  single  period  or  cat- 
aclysm. The  Revolution  of  course  did  its  share  in  the  work  of  destruc- 
tion, neglect,  or  dispersion,  as  in  the  case  of  Bee;  ^  but  this  has  often 
been  exaggerated,  and  the  departmental  archives  and  local  libraries 
which  were  then  created  seem  to  have  taken  over  the  greater  part  of 
what  remained  in  existence.  There  were  losses  en  route  to  these  estab- 
lishments, and  further  losses  under  the  archivists  of  the  Restoration, 
when  numerous  pieces  disappeared  from  public  repositories  only  to 
reappear  in  certain  private  collections,  but  in  most  instances  such 
material  has  been  recovered  or  at  least  placed,  so  that  there  is  small 
hope  of  new  discoveries  of  this  sort.  The  great  losses  seem  to  have  come 
before  the  Revolution,  for  the  scholars  of  the  Old  Regime,  as  their  work 
can  be  traced  in  surviving  copies,  are  seen  to  have  had  at  their  disposal 
relatively  few  collections  which  are  not  still  in  existence.  The  Prot- 
estants did  something  in  the  work  of  destruction,  the  Himdred  Years' 
War  did  more,  but  much  must  be  ascribed  to  the  frequent  fires  of  the 
Middle  Ages  and  to  the  carelessness  and  neglect  of  the  clergy  them- 
selves. As  early  as  the  fourteenth  century  a  scribe  of  Troarn  is  making 
extracts  from  a  Vetus  Cartarium  long  since  disappeared;  ^  as  late  as  the 
Revolution  the  canons  of  Coutances  are  said  to  have  spent  days  in 
burning  charters  which  they  could  no  longer  read.^ 

Of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  ducal  archives  themselves  it  is  impos- 
sible to  speak  with  much  definiteness.  An  archive  of  some  sort  is 
assumed  in  the  rotulos  et  cartas  nostras  transferred  from  Caen  to  London 
by  order  of  King  John  in  1204,®  but  the  handful  of  Exchequer  Rolls 
now  preserved  in  the  Public  Record  OflSce  is  but  a  sorry  remnant  of 
what  must  then  have  been  in  the  hands  of  his  officers,  nor  have  any 
rolls  of  other  types  survived  from  earUer  reigns.^  With  him  begin  the 

»  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  i.  233  f.,  241. 

*  Sauvage,  Troarn,  pp.  xxx-xxxiii;  cf.  supra,  Chapter  III,  no.  6;  infra,  Appendix 
H,  no.  I. 

'  Round,  Caiendar,  p.  xxxi,  note. 

'  Rotuli  de  Liberate,  p.  102  f.  The  barons'  returns  in  1172  were  deposited  in  the 
royal  treasury  at  Caen  (Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  297),  and  a  summary  of  them  was  later 
copied  into  the  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer. 

'  Supra,  Chapter  V,  note  6.  A  brief  exlraclus  memorandi  from  John's  Exchequer 
has  recently  been  discovered  and  published  by  Legras  {Bulletin  des  Antiquaires  de 
Normandie,  xxix.  21-31);  see  further  the  paper  of  Jenkinson  cited  supra,  p.  195. 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  SOURCES 


243 


short-lived  Rotuli  Normanniae  and  the  Norman  entries  in  the  patent 
and  other  rolls.*  After  the  loss  of  Normandy  the  Enghsh  possessions  of 
Norman  religious  establishments  still  furnished  an  occasion  for  the 
enrollment  of  Norman  charters,  in  the  Cariae  Antiquae  and  in  the 
numerous  inspeximus  of  Enghsh  sovereigns  contained  in  the  charter 
and  patent  rolls,  and  such  confirmations  were  naturally  nimierous 
during  the  occupation  of  Normandy  by  Henry  V  and  Henry  VI.' 
Certain  scattered  pieces  and  a  couple  of  cartularies  have  in  recent 
years  been  acquired  by  the  British  Museum.^" 

That  some  pubHc  records  escaped  the  process  of  transfer  to  England 
is  shown  by  a  fragment  of  a  roU  of  Stephen  cited  in  1790  "  and  a  frag- 
ment of  the  roll  of  11 84  discovered  by  Dehsle  in  the  Archives  Na- 
tionales.^^  Various  docimients  of  interest  to  Norman  administration, 
like  the  hst  of  knights'  fees  of  1172,  were  collected  by  the  officers  of 
Phihp  Augustus  and  copied  into  his  registers,^^  yet  the  only  surviving 
portion  of  the  inquest  of  1171  has  come  to  us  on  the  fly-leaf  of  a  copy 
of  Hrabanus  Maurus.^*  A  semi-official  compilation  of  charters  made  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  styled  by  Dehsle  the  Carlulaire  de  Normandie, 
should  be  noted.'*  Formulations  of  custom,  such  as  the  Consttetudines 
et  iusticie  and  the  lurea  regalis,^^  owe  their  preservation  to  private  col- 
lections of  Norman  law,  and  the  decisions  of  Norman  courts  in  the 
period  anterior  to  the  French  conquest  have  reached  us  only  in  charters 
preserved  by  the  interested  parties."  There  are  no  plea  rolls  or  feet  of 
fines. 

Next  to  the  disappearance  of  the  official  records  of  Norman  adminis- 
tration, the  most  serious  loss  is  probably  the  archives  of  the  bishoprics 
and  cathedrals,  of  which  none  has  a  full  series  of  records  for  the 

*  Supra,  Chapter  V,  note  210. 

*  See  the  calendars  of  the  Norman  rolls  of  Henry  V  in  appendices  to  Reports  of  the 
Deputy  Keeper,  xli.  671-810,  xlii.  313-452;  the  extracts  in  M.  A.  N.,  xsm,  part  i; 
and  the  Acies  de  la  ckancellerie  d'  Henri  VI,  ed.  Lecacheux,  Rouen,  1907-1908. 

Cartulary  of  the  leprosery  of  BoUeville,  Add.  MS.  17307;  cartulary  of  the 
priory  of  Loders,  Add.  MS.  15605;  and  the  series  of  Additional  Charters. 
"  M.  A.  N.,  xvi,  p.  XXX  f. 

"  Ibid.,  pp.  109-113;  Delisle,  Henri  II,  pp.  334-344. 

"  See  Delisle's  introduction  to  his  Cartulaire  normand  and  Catalogue  des  actes  de 
Philippe- A  uguste. 

"  Delisle,  Henri  II,  pp.  345-347,  from  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1879;  infra.  Appendix  K. 
"  Now  MS.  Rouen  1235.    See  Delisle,  Cartulaire  normand,  p.  vii. 
"  Appendix  D;  Chapter  V,  note  22. 

"  See  Delisle,  Memoire  sttr  les  anciennes  collections  de  jugements  de  V&chiquier  de 
Normandie  (Paris,  1864);  and  cf.  H.  F.,  xxiv.  271*  ff. 


244 


APPENDIX  A 


eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries  while  some  have  lost  practically  every- 
thing for  this  epoch.  Rouen  is  the  most  fortunate,  with  important 
cartularies  and  an  extensive  fonds  of  pieces  in  the  departmental 
archives.  This  fonds,  however,  admirably  calendared  by  Charles  de 
Beaurepaire,  contains  relatively  Uttle  anterior  to  the  French  conquest, 
while  only  two  of  the  cartularies  relate  to  this  period,^^  one  containing 
earlier  documents  having  evidently  been  lost.  Evreux  is  represented  by 
no  originals  but  by  a  valuable  set  of  cartularies  in  the  Archives  of  the 
Eure,  extending  from  the  destruction  of  the  cathedral  under  Henry  I. 
There  are  no  early  archives  for  Seez;  a  cartulary,  the  Livre  rouge,  was 
in  the  possession  of  the  bishop  before  the  Separation,^'  and  copies  of 
the  sixteenth  century  are  in  the  Hbrary  at  Alenfon  (MS.  177).  Lisieux 
likewise  has  lost  everything  for  this  period,  all  that  remains  being  a  late 
cartulary  of  the  see  in  the  municipal  library  and  a  fragment  of  the 
chapter  cartulary  at  Paris.^"  Bayeux  has  only  cartularies,  the  invalu- 
able Livre  noir  of  the  chapter  and  the  Livre  noir  of  the  see  still  preserved 
in  the  cathedral,  and  the  Livre  rouge.^^  Coutances  has  much  less,  only 
a  few  documents  in  the  paper  cartulary  recently  transferred  from  the 
eveche  to  the  Archives  of  the  Manche.^^  Avranches  has  left  practically 
nothing  save  an  occasional  piece  of  the  twelfth  century  in  its  Livre 
vertP 

The  monastic  archives  of  the  duchy  have  on  the  whole  fared  better. 
The  oldest  monasteries  of  importance,  Fecamp,  Jumieges,  Saint- 
Wandrille,  Saint-Ouen,  and  Mont-Saint-Michel,  have  transmitted 
valuable  early  originals  as  well  as  considerable  cartularies,  while  the 
somewhat  later  foundations  of  Caen,  Lessay,  Saint-Amand,  and 
Troarn  are  also  well  represented  in  the  departmental  archives.  From 
La  Trinite  du  Mont,  Saint-Pierre-de-Preaux,  Saint-Evroul,  Saint- 
Taurin,  and  Saint-Martin  de  Seez  we  have  only  cartularies,  in  each 
case  of  much  value  for  the  early  period.  Important  cartularies  for  the 
twelfth  century  are  those  of  Foucarmont,  Saint-Georges  de  Bocher- 
ville,  the  hospital  of  Pontaudemer,  Plessis-Grimould,  Saint-Andre-en- 
Gouffern,  Montebourg,  Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte,  and  Savigny.  The 

1'  The  so-called  cartulary  of  Philip  d'Alengon,  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure, 
G.  7;  and  the  cartulary  of  the  chapter,  MS.  Rouen  1193  (copy  in  MS.  Lat.  n.  a. 
1363)- 

"  Extracts  in  MS.  Lat.  11058. 
2"  MS.  Lat.  5288,  £f.  68-76. 

MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1828.    See  supra,  Chapter  VI,  notes  4,  15. 
^  Ihid.,  note  95;  cf.  A.  H.  R.,  viii.  631. 
"  MS.  Avranches  206;  see  Appendix  K. 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  SOURCES 


list,  however,  is  long  of  those  houses  from  which  little  or  nothing  has 
reached  us  directly  for  the  history  of  these  times:  Bee,  Bernai,  Cerisy, 
Conches,  Cormeilles,  Croir-Saint-Leufroy,  Grestain,  Ivry,  Lonlai, 
Montivilliers,  Saint-Desir  de  Lisieux,  Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive,  Saint- 
Sauveur  d'Evreux,  Saint-Sever,  Saint- Victor-en-Caux.  In  some  cases, 
as  Cerisy,  Lire,  Montivilliers,  and  Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive,  we  have 
vidimus  of  the  foundation  charters  or  notices  of  their  beginnings;  in 
others,  as  Bee,  modern  copies  supply  in  some  measure  the  loss  of  the 
mediaeval  pieces. 

An  important  group  of  ducal  charters  concerns  the  Norman  posses- 
sions of  religious  houses  in  other  parts  of  France.  Chief  among  these 
are  Marmoutier,  Cluny,  Fontevrault,  Saint-Julien  de  Tours,  Saint- 
Florent-les-Saumur,  Saint-Benoit-sur-Loire,  La  Trinite  de  Vendome, 
Chartres  cathedral,  Saint-Pere  de  Chartres,  Tiron,  Saint-Denis  de 
Nogent-le-Rotrou,  Le  Grand-Beaulieu-les-Chartres,  Saint-Denis  and 
Saint-Martin-des-Champs  at  Paris,  Saint-Martin  at  Pontoise,  Saint- 
Victor  du  Mans,  Le  Mans  cathedral,  and  Saint-Benigne  at  Dijon. 
The  most  important  of  these,  Marmoutier,  had  its  archives  dispersed 
during  the  Revolution,  but  its  Norman  charlriers  can  in  large  measure 
be  recovered  from  pieces  preserved  in  the  local  priories  and  especially 
from  the  important  series  of  copies  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale 
and  the  library  at  Tours.^^  In  nearly  all  the  other  instances  mentioned 
the  surviving  ducal  charters  are  pubUshed  in  printed  cartularies  or 
modern  collections  of  charters.^^ 

The  principal  local  repositories  of  documentary  material  relating  to 
early  Normandy  are  the  departmental  archives  of  the  Calvados,  Eure, 
Manche,  Orne,  and  Seine-Inferieure,  supplemented  by  the  public 
hbraries  of  Rouen,  Caen,  Alengon,  and  Avranches.  Scattered  volumes 
which  had  remained  in  the  possession  of  bishops  and  chapters  were 
claimed  by  the  public  archives  under  the  Separation  Law,  save  in  the 
case  of  the  cathedral  of  Bayeux,  which  was  for  the  time  being  consti- 
tuted a  public  depository.  Only  at  Rouen  do  the  municipal  archives 
contain  material  for  this  period;  archivesof  hospitals  are  rarely  of  assist- 
ance ;  there  is  some  scattered  matter  in  the  smaller  pubUc  libraries.  The 

^  See  P.  Colmant,  Les  actes  de  I'abbaye  de  Marmoutier,  in  Positions  des  theses  de 
V&cole  des  Chartes,  1907. 

«  MSS.  Lat.  5441,  12876-12880,  MS.  Baluze  77.      ^  Particularly  MS.  1381. 

^  See,  besides  the  indications  in  Stein's  Bibliographie  des  carlidaires,  L.-J.  Denis, 
Les  chartes  de  S.-Julien  de  Tours,  in  Archives  historiques  du  Maine,  xii  (1912); 
J.  Depoin,  Recueil  de  chartes  de  S.-Martin-dts-Champs,  in  Archives  de  la  France 
monastique,  xiii,  xvi. 


246 


APPENDIX  A 


chief  collection  of  originals  in  private  hands  is  the  important  body  of 
eariy  Fecamp  charters  in  the  Musee  de  la  Distillerie  de  Benedictine  at 
Fecamp.^*  The  great  collection  of  copies  made  by  Dom  Lenoir  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  now  the  property  of  the  Marquis  de  Mathan  at 
Saint-Pierre-de-Semilly,  is  based  chiefly  upon  the  registers  of  the 
Chambre  des  Comptes  and  comprises  few  early  charters.^'  The  copies 
of  the  abbe  de  La  Rue,  concerning  especially  the  history  of  Caen,  are 
divided  among  the  Collection  Mancel  at  Caen,  the  hbraries  of  Caen 
and  Cherbourg,  and  the  BibUotheque  Nationale;  the  Repertoire  des 
chartes  of  de  Gerville  relating  to  the  Cotentin  is  now  in  the  Collection 
Mancel;  recently  Armand  Benet  bequeathed  to  the  library  of  Evreux 
his  copies  of  ducal  and  other  charters.  An  older  collection  of  much 
value  for  the  Cotentin,  the  copies  of  Pierre  Mangon,  is  in  the  Hbrary  at 
Grenoble.'^  Of  the  departmental  archives,  those  of  the  Eure  and  Orne 
have  published  inventories  of  the  series  most  important  for  the  early 
period,  G  and  H;  those  of  the  Calvados  and  the  Manche  for  a  portion 
of  H;  those  of  the  Seine-Inferieure  only  for  the  Rouen  portion  of  G, 
the  rich  fonds  of  series  H  being  for  the  most  part  stiU  unclassified.*^ 

The  Archives  Nationales  are  useful,  so  far  as  ducal  Normandy  is 
concerned,  chiefly  for  the  royal  vidimus  contained  in  the  Registres  du 
Tresor  des  Chartes.^  There  are  also  scattered  pieces  in  the  Layettes 
du  Tresor  and  in  other  series,  notably  S,  while  there  is  a  fine  set  of 
originals  for  the  abbey  of  Savigny,^  rescued  in  1839  from  the  garret  of 
the  sous-prefecture  at  Mortain. 

The  BibHotheque  Nationale  is  exceedingly  rich  in  the  manuscript 
materials  for  early  Norman  history.'*  Its  resources  consist  in  part  of  a 

2^  Infra,  Appendix  B. 

"  The  cartularies  used  by  Dom  Lenoir  are  well  known  save  in  the  case  of  a 
"  cartulaire  de  I'abbaye  de  Lire  trouve  parmi  les  mss.  de  la  biblioth&que  du  coUege 
des  jesuites  de  Paris.  L'ecriture  est  du  13'  siecle  "  (xsdii.  453;  cf.  Ixrii,  329  ff.). 
This  seems  to  be  the  cartulary  used  by  the  editors  of  the  Monasticon,  vii.  1092-1095. 
MSS.  Fr.  n.  a.  20218-20221. 

^  Described  by  Delisle,  in  Annuaire  de  la  Manche,  1891,  pp.  11-42. 

^  For  the  Seine-Inferieure  see  P.  Chevreux  and  J.  Vernier,  Les  archives  de  Nor- 
mandie  el  de  la  Seine-Inferieure  (Rouen,  19 11),  which  contains  a  collection  of  fac- 
similes. 

"  See  in  general  the  introduction  to  Delisle,  Cartulaire  normand,  pp.  i-iv,  who 
notes  the  vidimus  as  far  as  1314.  I  have  searched  the  series  of  registers  to  1380. 

"  L.  966-978,  recently  renumbered.  Other  originals  are  in  MS.  Rouen  3122. 
On  the  history  of  the  archives  of  Savigny  see  Delisle's  introduction  to  his  edition  of 
the  Roideau  mortuaire  du  B.  Vital  (Paris,  1909). 

See  in  general  Delisle,  Le  Cabinet  des  MSS.  de  la  BibUotheque  Nationale  (Paris, 
1868-1881),  and  the  lists  of  acquisitions  published  biennially  by  Omont  in  B.  t,.  C. 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  SOURCES 


247 


great  number  of  cartularies  and  original  pieces  which  have  been  accu- 
mulated since  the  days  of  Colbert  and  which  now  comprise  a  very 
considerable  portion  of  the  materials  which  shpped  out  of  Norman 
archives  and  libraries  before,  during,  and  after  the  Revolution;  in 
part,  of  the  copies  of  modern  scholars  which  preserve  matter  now  lost. 
The  older  portion  of  these  copies  include  the  collections  of  Baluze,  Du 
Cange,  Duchesne,  Brequigny,  and  others;  the  transcripts  accumu- 
lated in  the  eighteenth  century  for  the  series  of  Charles  et  diplomes  and 
now  chronologically  arranged  in  the  Collection  Moreau;  the  numer- 
ous Norman  volumes  among  the  copies  of  the  exact  and  indefatigable 
Gaignieres;^  ecclesiastical  compilations  like  the  Monasticon  Benedic- 
tinum  (MSS.  Lat.  1 2658-1 2704)  and  Miscellanea  Monastica  (MSS. 
Lat.  1 2777-1 2780),  the  Neustria  Christiana  of  Du  Monstier  (MSS.  Lat. 
10048-10050),  the  Hierarchia  Normanniae  of  Coenalis  (MS.  Lat.  5201), 
the  materials  concerning  the  diocese  of  Coutances  brought  together  by 
Toustain  de  Billy  (MS.  Fr.  4900) and  the  historical  collections  relat- 
ing to  Bee  (MSS.  Lat.  12884,  i3905)>  Marmoutier  (supra,  note  25), 
and  Mont-Saint-Michel  (MS.  Lat.  5430A,  MS.  Fr.  18947  ff.).  To 
these  have  been  added  the  papers  of  most  of  the  principal  Norman 
scholars  of  the  nineteenth  century:  Achille  Deville  for  Upper  Nor- 
mandy (MSS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1243-1246);  Lechaude  d'Anisy  for  Lower 
Normandy  (MSS.  Lat.  10063-10084) ;  Auguste  Le  Prevost  for  the 
department  of  the  Eure  (MSS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1837-1838);  C.  Hippeau  for 
Saint-fitienne  de  Caen  (MSS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1406-1407) ;  and  finally  the 

Certain  Norman  cartularies  are  comprised  in  the  considerable  group  acquired  from 
the  library  of  Sir  Thomas  Phillipps  in  1908  (catalogue  by  Omont,  1909). 

For  MSS.  of  Norman  origin  in  the  Bibliotheque  Sainte-GeneviSve  see  E.  Deville 
in  the  Revue  calhdiqne  de  Normandie,  1903  ff. 

^  R.  Poupardin,  Catalogue  des  MSS.  des  collections  Duchesne  et  Brequigny  (Paris, 
1905);  Catalogue  de  la  Collection  Baluze  by  Auvray  and  Poupardin  (Paris,  1915). 
Norman  cartularies  also  contributed  to  the  extracts  concerning  Meulan  made  by 
de  Blois  ca.  1650  and  now  preserved  in  the  Collection  du  Vexin,  iv. 

"  Omont,  Invenlaire  des  MSS.  de  la  Collection  Moreau  (Paris,  1891).  The  Nor- 
man copies  are  chiefly  in  the  hand  of  Dom  Lenoir;  volume  341  is  devoted  to  Fecamp. 

"  Chiefly  in  the  volumes  classified  by  monasteries;  see  also  the  collections  con- 
cerning Norman  bishops  (MSS.  Lat.  17022  £f.).  The  extracts  published  by  DeUsle 
from  the  collected  papers  (MSS.  Fr.  20899-20917),  in  Annuaire  de  la  Manche,  1893 
and  1898,  deal  with  the  later  period. 

Analyzed  by  Delisle,  Revue  des  bibliolkeques,  vii.  241-267. 

*"  Cf.  the  similar  matter  in  MSS.  Fr.  4899-4902,  n.  a.  154-157.  The  history  of 
the  diocese  of  Coutances  pubUshed  by  the  Soci6te  de  I'histoire  de  Normandie  in  1874 
lacks  the  preuves,  as  do  also  the  histories  of  Savigny,  Jumidges,  and  Mont-Saint- 
Michel  in  the  same  series. 


248 


APPENDIX  A 


lifelong  accumulations  of  Leopold  Delisle  (MSS.  Fr.  n.  a.  21806- 
21873)." 

The  exploration  and  publication  of  these  sources  have  proceeded  in 
an  incomplete  and  unsystematic  fashion.  In  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  Norman  archives  were  laid  under  contribution  for 
the  Neustria  Pia  of  Arthur  Du  Monstier,  the  eleventh  volume  of  the 
Gallia  Christiana,  La  Roque's  Histoire  de  la  maison  d'Harcourt,  the 
Concilia  Rotomagensis  Provinciae  of  Bessin,  and  the  publications  of 
Pommeraye  relating  to  Rouen,  as  well  as  for  the  more  general  ecclesias- 
tical collections  of  Mabillon,  Martene  and  Durand,  and  d'Achery.  In 
the  nineteenth  century  leadership  passed  to  the  Societe  des  Antiquaires 
de  Normandie  and  the  Societe  de  I'histoire  de  Normandie,  supple- 
mented by  the  Norman  academies  and  various  local  societies  and 
reviews,  of  which  the  Revue  calkolique  de  Normandie  in  recent  years 
deserves  special  mention.  Among  individual  scholars  Leopold  DeUsle 
stands  in  a  place  by  himself  for  his  thorough  acquaintance  with  Norman 
history,  narrative  and  literary  as  well  as  documentary.  De  Gerville,  who 
did  much  to  stimulate  interest  in  Norman  history  at  the  beginning  of 
the  century,  was  a  collector  of  documents  rather  than  an  editor;  his 
younger  contemporary  Le  Prevost,  besides  his  share  in  the  great  edi- 
tion of  Ordericus,  left  behind  him  a  collection  of  Memoires  et  notes 
pour  servir  d  I'histoire  du  departement  de  I'Eure  (fivreux,  1862-1869) 
which  has  not  always  been  sufficiently  utilized  by  his  successors. 
Amid  the  multiplicity  of  scattered  publications  relatively  few  Norman 
cartularies  have  been  edited,  among  those  of  the  first  importance  only 
the  Cartulaire  de  la  Sainte-Trinite-du-Mont  (ed.  A.  Deville,  1840)  and 
the  Livre  noir  of  Bayeux  (Anliquus  Cariularius,  ed.  V.  Bourrienne, 
i902-i903).'*^  The  most  extensive  publications  of  this  sort  (e.  g.,  T. 
Bonnin,  Cartulaire  de  Louviers,  Paris,  1870-1883)  concern  chiefly  other 
periods.  Editions  by  trained  scholars  are  now  announced  of  two 
important  cartularies  of  the  twelfth  centiu-y,  that  of  La  Trinite  de 
Caen  by  R.  N.  Sauvage,  and  that  of  Mont-Saint-Michel  by  P.  Le- 
cacheux.  For  the  present  the  most  convenient  guide  to  the  contents  of 
Norman  documents  is  the  Calendar  of  Documents  Preserved  in  France 
of  J.  Horace  Round  (London,  1899).  This  is  unfortunately  based  upon 
a  set  of  loose  copies  in  the  Public  Record  Office,*'  and  while  the  editor 
supplemented  these  by  personal  investigation  in  France  and  verified  a 

*'  Also  many  cartularies  copied  by  him  or  under  his  direction. 
«  Cf.  A.  H.  R.,  viii.  615;  supa,  Chapter  VI,  note  15. 
"  CI.  A.  H.  R.,  viii.  614,  note. 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  SOURCES 


249 


certain  number  from  the  originals,  much  material  was  left  untouched 
and  in  too  many  instances  the  originals  were  not  collated.  The  anal- 
yses of  docimients  and  the  identification  of  persons,  however,  were 
made  with  the  care  and  competence  which  were  to  be  expected  from 
this  distinguished  master  of  Anglo-Norman  history. 

At  present  the  study  of  the  documentary  sources  needs  to  be  pushed 
in  two  directions,  the  history  of  monasteries  and  the  ducal  charters. 
In  the  field  of  monastic  history  there  is  need  both  of  comprehensive 
studies  like  the  recent  monograph  of  R.  N.  Sauvage  on  L'abbaye  de 
Saint-Martin  de  Troarn^*  (Caen,  191 1),  and  of  critical  editions  of  early 
charters,  such  as  Ferdinand  Lot  has  given  in  his  Etudes  critiques  sur 
l'abbaye  de  Saint-Wandrille  (Paris,  1913).*^  Such  studies  furnish  the 
necessary  basis  for  a  collection  of  ducal  charters  which  shall  perform 
for  the  earlier  dukes  the  labor  so  admirably  done  by  Delisle  and  Berger 
for  Henry  II.  From  1066  on  such  work  must  be  carried  on  with  the 
closest  attention  to  the  material  in  England,  for  which  H.  W.  C.  Davis 
has  begun  his  Regesta  Regum  Anglo-Normannorum  (i,  Oxford,  1913). 

Where,  pp.  xlv-xlix,  other  monastic  histories  are  enumerated.  One  of  the  best 
is  Por^e,  Histoire  de  l'abbaye  du  Bee  (fivreux,  1901). 

J.-J.  Vernier,  Les  ckarles  de  l'abbaye  de  Jumieges  (Societe  de  rhistoire  de  Nor- 
mandie,  1916),  reached  me  only  after  this  volume  was  in  type. 


APPENDIX  B 


THE  EARLY  DUCAL  CHARTERS  FOR  F£CAMP 

The  abbey  of  Fecamp,  "  the  Saint-Denis  of  the  Norman  dukes," ' 
was  from  its  foundation  in  the  closest  relations  with  the  ducal  house, 
from  which  it  received  important  grants  and  privdleges;  yet  its  early 
charters  have  received  singularly  httle  attention  from  historians.  The 
series  in  the  departmental  archives  at  Rouen,  though  rich  for  the  later 
period,  contains  comparatively  few  early  documents;  the  earliest  orig- 
inals passed  into  private  hands  and  were  finally  acquired  by  the 
Musee  de  la  Distillerie  de  Benedictine  de  Fecamp,  to  the  generosity  of 
whose  proprietors  I  am  indebted  for  photographs  and  opportunities 
of  study  on  the  spot.  The  cartularies  in  the  Archives  of  the  Seine- 
Inferieure  (no.  i6)  and  in  the  PubUc  Library  at  Rouen  (MS.  1207)  con- 
tain little  on  the  early  period,  but  the  careful  copies  of  Dom  Lenoir 
at  SemiUy  (volume  76)  and  in  the  Collection  Moreau  at  the  BibUo- 
theque  Nationale  (especially  volvmie  341)  are  based  upon  a  lost  cartu- 
lary of  the  twelfth  century  as  well  as  upon  originals  then  in  possession 
of  the  abbey. 

An  adequate  study  of  this  material  can  be  undertaken  only  as  part 
of  a  history  of  the  monastery,  but  the  student  of  Norman  institutions 
cannot  avoid  an  examination  of  the  earUest  ducal  charters,  which  offer 
an  exceptionally  full  series,  with  several  unpublished  originals  (see  the 
facsimiles  in  the  present  volume),  and  are  of  much  importance  for  the 
grants  of  immunity,  the  ducal  curia,  and  ducal  finance.  The  following 
list  is  confined  to  the  charters  of  Richard  I,  Richard  U,  and  Robert  I, 
and  to  certain  forgeries  based  upon  them  and  ascribed  to  William 
the  Conqueror.^ 

In  general  the  early  charters  of  Fecamp  show  small  trace  of  the 
forger's  hand,  as  compared,  for  example,  with  the  documents  of  the 
same  period  for  Saint-Wandrille  and  Saint-Ouen.  At  two  points,  how- 
ever, Fecamp  was  tempted  to  sustain  its  claims  by  fabrication,  with 
respect  namely  to  the  exemption  of  Fecamp  and  certain  other  parishes 
from  the  authority  of  the  archbishop  of  Rouen,  and  to  the  immunity  of 
the  monastery  from  secular  jurisdiction.  The  documentary  basis  for 

1  Prentout,  £tude  critique  sur  Dudon  de  S.-Quentin,  p.  326. 
'  For  three  unpublished  originals  of  Robert  Curthose,  see  infra,  Appendix  E, 
no.  4. 

250 


EARLY  CHARTERS  FOR  FECAMP 


the  exemption  is  not  entirely  clear,^  and  an  interpolation  to  this  effect 
was  attempted  in  the  earUest  charter  of  the  monastery,  that  of  Duke 
Richard  I  {infra,  no.  i).  No  immunity  is  found  in  this  document,  but 
the  first  charter  of  Richard  II,  issued  30  May  1006  (no.  2),  has  the 
following  clause: 

Tam  horxun  quam  eonim  qu§  a  patre  meo  tradita  sunt  omnis  ordinatio 
exterius  et  interius  in  abbatis  sibique  subiectorum  consistat  arbitrio,  undeque 
eorum  dispositioni  resistat  persona  nulla  parva  vel  magna  cuiuscumque 
ofl&cii  dignitatisve.  Et  non  solum  in  rerum  ordinatione  iustici  sad  in  resti- 
tuendi  abbatis  electione  ...  a  nobis  iuste  collata  utantur  libertate.* 

A  specific  grant  of  immunity  appears  for  the  first  time  in  no.  5,  Rich- 
ard II's  charter  Propitia  of  1025  (1027),  in  exactly  the  same  terms  as  in 
the  contemporary  charters  for  Jumieges  and  Bernai  and  in  the  charters 
of  Robert  I  for  Saint-Amand  and  La  Trinite  du  Mont:  ^ 

Haec  onmia  .  .  .  concedo  .  .  .  ut  habeant,  teneant,  et  possideant  abs- 
que uJla  inquietudine  cuiuslibet  s§cularis  vel  iudiciarig  potestatis  sicuti  res 
ad  fiscum  dominicum  pertinentes. 

This  is  clearly  the  genuine  and  standard  form  of  the  Fecamp  immunity. 
The  general  confirmation  of  Robert  I  in  its  expanded  text  (no.  loB) 
gives  a  different  statement: 

Ista  igitur  bona  et  omnia  alia  qu§  Fischannensi  monasterio  olim  donata 
sunt  sub  solius  abbatis  potestate  et  iusticia  constituimus  ut  nullius  digni- 
tatis homo  aliquando  manum  intromittere  presumat. 

The  fabrication  based  upon  nos.  5  and  10  and  ascribed  to  William  the 
Conqueror  (no.  11)  elaborates  the  exemption  with  particular  reference 
to  Saint-Gervais: 

'  Documents  are  lacking  to  confirm  the  account  in  the  De  revelatione  (Neustria 
Pia,  p.  214;  Bessin,  Concilia,  ii.  21)  according  to  which  the  freedom  '  ab  omni 
episcoporum  iugo  et  consuetudine  '  was  granted  by  Richard  II,  King  Robert, 
Archbishop  Robert,  and  Benedict  VIII;  but  such  an  exemption  is  presupposed  in 
the  freedom  '  ab  omni  episcopali  consuetudine  .  .  .  sicut  tenet  Fiscarmensi  ecclesia ' 
which  was  granted  to  MontiviUiers  in  1035  {Gallia  Christiana,  sd.  instr.  326;  infra, 
Appendix  C,  no.  17).  For  the  controversies  over  exemption  at  the  close  of  the 
eleventh  century  see  the  Ordinatianes  facte  in  monasterio  Fiscanni,  in  Mabillon, 
Annates,  iv,  668;  and  the  treatises  in  MS.  415  of  Corpus  Christi  College,  Cam- 
bridge (Bohmer,  Kirche  und  Staat,  pp.  180,  183). 

*  King  Robert's  charter  of  even  date  has:  '  Sicut  nuUi  ordini,  dignitati,  fwtestati, 
hereditarieque  successioni,  nostre  quinimmo  maiestati  super  idem  ius  relinquere 
decrevimus  dominationis.'  H.  F.,  x.  5S8. 

'  Supra,  p.  26.  For  the  later  history  of  the  immunity  of  Fecamp,  see  Valin, 
p.  224;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  57. 


252 


APPENDIX  B 


Et  ab  omni  servido  archiepiscopali  sit  libera  sicut  Fiscanni  abbacia,  ut 
nullus  meus  heres  aut  archiepiscopus  seu  alicuius  potestatis  persona  audeat 
infringere  vel  violare  banc  meam  donacionem. 

The  second  of  the  forgeries  attributed  to  the  Conqueror  (no.  12),  with 
the  related  extract  concerning  Steyning,  was  prepared  primarily  for  use 
in  England;  for  the  Norman  lands  it  merely  repeats  the  clause  of 
Richard  II  with  the  insertion  of  vel  dimimdione,  whereas  for  the 
English  possessions  it  repeats  the  clause  in  this  form  and  adds 

Et  quod  abbas  et  monachi  ecclesie  Fiscannensis  vel  eorum  ministri  regiam 
habeant  libertatem  et  consuetudinem  et  iusticiam  suam  de  omnibus  rebus  et 
negotiis  que  in  terra  sua  evenient  vel  pwterunt  evenire,  nec  aliquis  nisi  per 
eos  se  inde  intromittat,  quia  hoc  totum  regale  beneficium  est  et  omni  servi- 
tute  quietum. 

Such  '  royal  Uberty  and  justice '  was  confirmed  to  the  abbey  by 
Henry 

1 

989-990  (?) 

Charter  of  Richard  I,  with  the  concurrence  of  Archbishop  Robert  and  all 
the  bishops  of  Normandy,  granting  to  Fecamp  Mondeville,  Argences, 
(Calvados),  Saint-Valery,  '  Bretennoles,'  and  Ingouville  {Seine-In- 
ferieure)  {together  with  the  exemption  of  the  abbey  church  and  twelve 
others  from  all  episcopal  jurisdiction). 

A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  in  lost  cartulary  of  12th  century;  C,  copy 
of  12th  century  in  the  Public  Library  of  Rouen,  MS.  427,  f.  151V. 

La  Roque,  Histoire  de  la  maison  d'Harcourt,  iii.  165  (cf.  164),  '  ex- 
traict  des  archives  de  Fabbaye  ';  Neustria  Pia,  p.  208,  from  C,  omit- 
ting several  witnesses;  Pommeraye,  Sanctae  Rotomagensis  Ecclesiae 
Concilia,  p.  60;  extract  in  factum  of  1688  (BibHotheque  Nationale, 
factum  12070,  2),  where  it  is  attributed  to  Richard  II.  Cf.  MabUlon, 
Annates,  iv.  57  (62);  Bessin,  Concilia,  u.  21;  Gallia  Christiana,^.  20^, 
where  the  text  is  corrected  from  B. 

The  charter  is  imdated  but  was  apparently  given  at  the  time  of  the 
dedication,  the  date  of  which  is  not  given  by  Dudo,  William  of  Ju- 
mieges,  or  the  Fecamp  annals  (Labbe,  Nova  Bibliotheca,  i.  325),  but 
appears  as  989  or  990  in  the  later  annaUsts  (Duchesne,  Historiae  Nor- 
mannorum  Scriptores,  p.  1017;  H.  F.,  x.  317;  Gallia  Christiana,  xi. 
203).  The  document  cannot  in  any  case  be  earlier  than  989,  the  year 


*  Delisle-Berger,  no.  57. 


EARLY  CHARTERS  FOR  FECAMP 


of  the  accession  of  Robert  to  the  archbishopric  of  Rouen  (Annals  of 
Jumieges,  in  the  Vatican,  MS.  Regina  553,  part  2,  f.  6;  Ordericus,  ii. 
365,  V.  156;  cf.  Vacandard  in  Revue  catholique  de  Normandie,  xiii.  196); 
it  is  fundamental  for  the  dates  of  the  Norman  bishops,  who  are  all 
mentioned  by  name. 

The  exemption  of  the  thirteen  parishes  from  the  archbishop's  juris- 
diction, which  is  found  in  all  the  printed  texts,  is  an  obvious  interpola- 
tion, as  was  pointed  out  by  the  editors  of  the  Gallia,  who  note  that  it 
does  not  occur  in  B.  There  is  no  apparent  reason  for  doubting  the 
remainder  of  the  document:  a  charter  of  Richard  I  is  specifically  cited 
by  Richard  II  (infra,  no.  2),  and  the  places  here  granted  are  recited  in 
the  general  confirmation  of  Richard  II  (no.  5).  The  enumeration  in 
this  confirmation  of  other  grants  of  Richard  I  —  Etigues,  etc.  —  may 
imply  other  charters  of  his  now  lost. 

2 

30  May  1006,  doubtless  at  Fecamp 

Charter  of  Richard  II  granting  to  Fecamp  freedom  of  election  according 
to  the  custom  of  Cluny,  and  adding  to  the  gifts  of  his  father  possessions  in 
the  following  places:  Fecamp,  '  Giruinivilla '  (=  Vittefleur  ?),  Argues, 
£crettemlle,  Harfleur,  Rouen,  Pissy,  Barentin  (Seine-Inferieure), 
Aizier  (Eure),  Hennequeville  (Calvados),  and  five  churches  in  Vaudreuil. 

A,  original  in  Musee  de  la  Benedictine,  no.  i;  B,  copy  in  Collection 
Moreau,  cccxh.  2,  from  which  the  portions  in  brackets  have  been 
restored. 

Unpublished;  see  the  facsimile,  plate  i.  These  privileges  are  con- 
firmed by  a  charter  of  King  Robert,  issued  at  Fecamp  on  the  same  day: 
collated  copies  in  Musee,  nos.  2,  3;  printed  in  Gallia  Christiana,  xi. 
instr,  8;  Mabillon,  Annates,  iv.  170  (185);  E.  F.,  x.  587,  no.  xvi; 
Pfister,  Robert  le  Pieux,  catalogue,  no.  30.^ 

IN  NOMINE  SANCTAE  ET  INDrVrDXTAE  TRINITATIS  DIVINA  FAVENTE  GRATIA 

[RiCAiiDUs]  COMES  ET  PATRiTius.||  Hactcnus  locum  istum  vulgaris  fama 
Fiscamnum  vocare  consuevit,  cuius  ethimologia  perspecta  doctores  novelli 
quidam  fixum  scamniun  quidam  fixum  campum  volunt  appellari.  ReUicto 
ergo  inter  contentiosos  iudicio  huius  nominis,  causa  divini  servicii  quae  ibi 

'  The  original  of  Robert's  other  charter  for  F6camp  {H.  F.,  x.  587,  no.  xv;  Pfister, 
no.  33)  is  in  the  Musee,  no.  i ;  copy  in  Collection  Moreau,  cccxli.  12.  For  other  early 
grants  to  Fecamp,  see  La  Roque,  iii.  167;  Depoin,  Cartulaire  de  S.-Martin  de 
Pontoise,  p.  342. 


254 


APPENDIX  B 


agitur  quando  vel  quomodo  cepta  sit  cognoscatur.  Sicut  in  universis  terrae 
partibus  sancta  mater  aecclesia  multiplicato  gaudet  filionim  numero,  ita  in 
ipsisexultare  cupit  operum  bononun  incremento.  Quonrni  multis  per  aliarum 
exequutiones  virtutum  occupatis,  dum  quidam  ex  transitoriis  bonis  cuxas 
gerunt  pauperum,  alii  sanctorum  locis  edificandis  invigilant,  quasi  decollatis 
beneficiis  Christo  vicissitudinem  reddunt,ut  cum  illo  felicius  vivant.  Quorum 
exemplo  notum  sit  presentibus  et  futuris  in  hoc  loco  patrem  meum  comitem 
Richardimi  fundamento  construxisse  aecclesiam  in  honore  sanctae  et  indi- 
\iduae  trinitatis  consubstantialispatris  et  filii  et  spiritus  sancti,eo  intentionis 
voto  ut  coUectus  monachonmi  ordo  sub  regula  Sancti  Benedicti  viveret  et 
Dei  laudibus  inserviret.  Cuius  desiderium  ubi  mors  abstulit  imperfectum, 
ego  Richardus  comes  eius  equivocus  filius  suscepi  peragendum,  nec  multo 
post  divina  providentia  inventum  domnum  Wilelmum  abbatem  et  precibus 
et  caput  huius  crescendg  religionis  preesse  institui.  Sub  quo  iam  multipli- 
catis  monachis  et  multiplicandis  temporalibus  bonis  quae  a  patre  meo  huic 
loco  concessa  sunt  et  per  cartam  firmata,  hgc  ex  hereditario  iiu-e  concessa 
super  addo:  In  comitatu  scUicet  Calciacensi  in  ipsa  villa  Fiscamno  tertiam 
partem  hospitum  quos  colonos  vocant  cum  terra  arabili  quae  ad  ipsam  ter- 
tiam partem  pertinet,  unam  partem  silvae  a  publica  strata  usque  ad  mare 
terminatam,  et  dimidium  vectigal;  in  Giruinivilla  cum  duobus  molendinis 
quicquid  habere  visus  simi;  apud  viUam  Archas  tertiam  partem  piscariae 
et  duas  salinas  et  ahquid  terrae  arabilis  cum  prato;  aecclesiam  Scrotivillae 
et  aliquid  terrae  arabiUs;  apud  Harofloz  .i.  mansum  cum  Ix.  pensis  saHs  cum 
.iiii.  hacreis  prati;  in  civitate  Rotomagensi  mansum  imum  cum  ca[p]ella  et 
XXX  hacreis  terr§  arabilis  cum  vii  hacreis  prati;  et  in  comitatu  eiusdem 
civitatis  gcclesiam  Piscei  et  aliquid  terrae  arabilis  cum  gcclesia  Barentini 
villae;  in  vallae  Rologiville  aecclesiam  Sanctae  Mariae,  aecclesiam  Sancti 
Stephani,  gcclesiam  Sanctae  CecUiae,  aecclesiam  Sancti  Saturnini,  aecclesiam 
Sancti  Quintini  cum  capellis  subiectis  eis  et  quicquid  terrae  arabilis  et  prati 
ad  eas  pertinet ;  super  ripam  Sequang  Aschei  villam  et  quicquid  ibi  Trostin- 
cus  tenuit;  Heldechimvillam  super  mare.  Hgc  predicto  loco  perpetualiter 
habenda  concgdo,  igitur  tam  [h]orum  quam  eorum  qug  a  patre  meo  tradita 
simt  omnis  ordinatio  exterius  et  interius  in  abbatis  sibique  subiectorum 
consistat  arbitrio,  undeque  eorum  disposition!  resistat  persona  nulla  parva 
vel  magna  cviiuscumque  officii  dignitatisve.  Et  non  solum  in  rerum  ordina- 
tione  iusticia  sed  in  restituendi  abbatis  electione,  ubi  morte  subtractus 
fuerit,  a  nobis  iuste  collata  utantur  Ubertate,  ita  dumtaxat  ut  in  ipsa  elec- 
tione vel  ordinatione  abbatis  iUa  per  omnia  servetiu:  consuetudo  quae 
hactenusin  Cluniaco  cgnobiorum  servata  est  iDu[s]trissimo,  vmde  fonssanctae 
monasticg  religionis  per  multa  iam  longe  lateque  dirivatus  loca  ad  hunc 
usque  Deo  profiuit  propicio.  Cuius  sanctae  reHgionis  observatio  ut  magis  ac 
magis  ad  profectum  tam  meg  quam  genitoris  ac  genitricis  omniumque 
fideHum  proficiat  animarum  hoc  in  Fixiscamnensi  monasterio,  sicut  nulli 
ordini  dignitati  potestati  heredetarigque  successioni  relinquere  super  idem 
ius  decrevimus  dominationis,  ita  si  a  iam  cepta,  quod  absit,  deviaverit 
rectitudine,  nulli  illud  in  pristinum  reformanti  mercedem  denegamus  recu- 
perationis,  sed  et  nostronmi  super  his  decretonmi  invasores  violatores  sive 
destructores  nisi  emendaverint  non  evadere  se  sciant  maledictionem  Dei  sed 


EARLY  CHARTERS  FOR  FECAMP 


cum  diabolo  et  luda  proditore  pgnas  quibunt  in  inferno  sustinere  impionim 
[ubi  vjermis  non  morietur  et  ignis  non  extinguetur  in  gternum.  +Ego 
autem  richardus  Norhtmannonim  dux,  ut  hinc  mihi  merces  cumuletur 
aeterna  huiusque  cartule  testamentum  per  Widonem  notarium  meo  rogatu 
conscriptum  stipulatione  firmetur,  subnixa  propria  signans  manu  firmavi 
bisque  roborari  [rogans  t]estibus  tradidi.  SS  Rodulf[i]  SS  Wilelm[i]  SS 
[ego  wido]  notarius  iussu  [domni  richardi  iLLusTRissiin  Duas,  Qin 

MISBRICORDIAE  OPERIBUS  VALDE  QVIA  STUDET]  ELEMOSINARIUS  VOCATXJR, 

HOC  [testamentum]  scripsi  anno  D0MINIC|:  incarnationis  [m.  indic- 
tiont;  nn.  die  tertio  ante  kal.  iunti  v.  feria  DOMcac^  ascensionis 

GAUDIO]  CELEBESRIMA,  FEUCITER. 

3 

IOI7-I025  (?) 

Charter  of  Richard  II  granting  for  the  enrichment  of  Fecamp  lands  and 
churches  in  Fecamp,  Sassetot{  ?),  Limpiville,  Tremauville,  Ganzeville, 
Manneville  (?),  Dun,  Barentin,  Campeaux,  La  Carboniere,  and  Villers- 
C/iambellan '  (Seine-Inferieure). 

A,  original  in  Musee  de  la  Benedictine,  no.  2  bis;  B,  copy  by  Dom 
Lenoir  from  A  in  Collection  Moreau,  cccxli.  6,  from  which  blurred 
words  in  the  original  have  been  suppHed;  C,  another  copy  from  A  at 
Semilly,  Ixxvi.  165;  D,  copy  by  A.  Deville,  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1245,  f.  no. 

Unpublished;  see  the  facsimile,  plate  2.  Subsequent  to  1017,  when 
the  predecessor  of  Maingisus  attests  as  bishop  of  Avranches;  anterior 
to  no.  5.  According  to  Dom  Lenoir,  "  on  pense  a  Fecamp  que  cette 
charte  est  de  1'  an  1023." 

+QUONIAM  VERIDICA  DrVTNARXJM  SCRIPTIJRARXJM  ASSERTIONS  1 1  priscorum- 

que  patrum  monimentis  expresse  edocti  id  carta  ratione  comperimus  quod 
quicimque  oninipotentis  Dei  premisso  timore  speque  animatus  perhennis 
vit§  aliquod  quantulumcumque  munusculum  sanct?  matri  aecclesig  ex 
propriis  iureque  adquisitis  rebus  contulerit,  absque  dubio  in  futuro  ei  re- 
compensabitiu"  superni  braxii  sterna;  unde  ego  Richardus  huiusce  cespitis 
monarchus,  ut  credo  summi  Dei  crebrerrimis  cordetenus  agitatus  huiusmodi 
inspirationis  spiculis,  quendam  locum  qui  dicitur  Fiscamus  dicatum  in 
honore  summi  redemptoris  sacris  ordinibus  monachoriun  ex  more  mancipavi 
quo  perpetualiter  inibi  laudetur  nomen  Domini.  Ut  autem  devotionis  nostr§ 
inconvidsa  permaneat  ratio,  decrevi  locum  ilium  ditari  et  augere.  Ad 
augendam  igitur  vitam  inibi  Domino  militantium  concedo  in  ipso  loco 
Fiscamo  .xii.  bon'  terr§  .xii.que  domos;  §cclesiam  Beati  Stephani  cum  bon 

*  According  to  Dom  Lenoir  the  last  three  are  hamlets  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Barentin.  Instead  of  Sassetot  one  would  expect  filetot,  as  in  no.  5. 

'  Delisle,  6,tude  sur  V agriculture,  p.  537,  found  no  instance  of  this  measure  of 
land,  the  bonaria  or  bonata,  in  Normandy. 


256 


APPENDIX  B 


.vi.;  gcclesiam  Beati  Benedict!  cum  terra  qug  est  inter  duos  fluvios  et  mol- 
endinouno;  in  Saestetothecclesiamcum  xii.  bon  terr§;  Leopini  villam  totam 
cum  ecclesia  et  quicquid  ad  earn  pertinet;  in  Tormodi  villa  ecclesiam  cum 
terra  unius  carrucg;  in  Gansan villa  ecclesiam  cum  terra  ad  eam  pertinente;  ad 
Manonis  villam  §cclesiam  cum  xii.  boii  et  acri  terre;  in  villa  qu§  dicitur  Dunus 
.iii.  gcclesias  cum  .xl.iiii.  bon  terrg;  gcclesiam  vill§  que  dicitur  Barentinus 
cum  duobus  hospitibus  et  aream  molendini  unam  aquamque  villg  a  gordo  de 
Pauliaco  usque  ad  fagum  comitiss§;  viUam  quoque  qu§  dicitur  Campelli  cum 
silva  qu§  est  a  valle  Carbonaria  usque  ad  vallem  Villaris.  Eo  pacto  ut  h§c 
qu§  prefata  sunt  inviolabiliter  teneant  inibi  Deo  militantes  absque  ullius 
molestia  et  contradictione  sub  manu  nostr§  firmitatis  fideliumque  nostro- 
rumque  astipulatione. 

+Signum  Richardi  comitis+Signum  Ricardi  filii  eius+Signiun  Rotberti 
filii  eius  +Signum  Rotberti  archiepiscopi  +Signum  Hugonis  Baiocensis 
episcopi  +Signum  Hugonis  Ebroicensis  episcopi  +Signum  Mangisi  Abrincen- 
sis  episcopi  +Signimi  Nigelli  vicecomitis  +Signum  Torstingi  vicecomitis. 

4 

15  June  1023,  at  Rouen 

Grant  to  Fecamp  by  Galeran  I  of  Metdan,  in  the  presence  of  Richard  II, 
of  the  toll  and  peage  of  Meulan. 

A,  quasi-original  in  Musee  de  la  Benedictine,  no.  28;  B,  copy  there- 
from by  Dom  Lenoir  at  Semilly,  Ixxvi.  167. 

Unpublished.  '  Actum  Rothomago  (sic)  .xvii.  kal.  lulii  indictione 
.vi.  regnante  Rotberto  serenissimo  rege  Francorimi  ante  presentiam 
gloriosi  Richardi  Normannorum  ducis  et  fratris  eius  Roberti  ipsius 
urbis  archiepiscopi  et  domini  Willehni  iam  dicti  monasterii  abbatis.' 
Attestations  '  Waleranni,  Herberti  comitis  Cenomarmic^  civitatis, 
loffredi  comitis  BeUimontis  castri,  Hilduini  vicecomitis  Mellensis 
supradicti  castri.' 

5 

Aixgust  1025  (?),  at  Fecamp 

Great  charter  of  Richard  II  enumerating  and  confirming  the  gifts  of  his 
father,  himself,  and  his  followers  to  Fecamp,  including  the  tithe  of  his 
mint  and  his  camera,  to  hold  on  the  same  conditions  as  his  own  demesne. 
{Inc.  *  Propitia  divin§  gratiae  dementia.  .  .  .') 

A,  original  in  Musee  de  la  Benedictine,  no.  2  ter;  see  the  facsimile, 
plate  3.  There  is  now  no  trace  of  a  seal,  but  according  to  F  (see  Delisle, 
in  MS.  Fr.  n.  a.  21819,  ff.  8-12)  it  still  had  a  great  seal  in  1503.  Dom 
Lenoir  says:  "  II  y  avoit  un  sceau  applique  dont  la  figure  etoit  ronde. 


EARLY  CHARTERS  FOR  FECAMP 


H  ne  subsiste  plus,  mais  on  voit  encore  les  incisions  faites  au  bas  de  la 
charte  pour  introduire  la  cire  sur  laquelle  ce  sceau  etoit  imprime."  B, 
copy  from  A  by  Dom  Lenoir,  Collection  Moreau,  cccxli.  8;  C,  collated 
copy  of  1320  in  Musee,  no.  4;  D,  vidimus  of  Philip  III  formerly  in 
archives  of  the  abbey  (cf .  Collection  Moreau,  cccxli.  8) ;  E,  copy  of  D 
in  cartulary,  MS.  Rouen  1207,  f.  i ;  F,  modern  copies  in  Archives  of  the 
Seine-Inferieure. 

Neustria  Pia,  p.  215,  with  innumerable  errors;  T.  Bonnin,  Cariulaire 
de  Louviers,  i.  3,  from  E;  cf.  Delisle,  Cartulaire  normand,  no.  833. 
The  date  in  the  original  runs  as  follows,  substantially  as  in  Neustria 

Pia:  DATA  MENSE  AUGUSTO  CONSIDENTIBUS  NOBIS  FISCANNI  PAI.ATIO 
ANNO  AB  INCARNATIONE  DOMINI  .1.  XXVII.  INDICTIONE  VIII.  REGNANTE 

ROTBERTO  REGE  ANNO  XXXVI.  The  same  date  appears,  save  for  the 
year  of  King  Robert  which  is  given  as  the  thirty-eighth,  in  two  other 
charters  of  Richard  II  which  also  show  close  resemblance  in  the  final 
clauses:  one  a  pancarta  for  Jumieges  preserved  in  vidimus  of  1499 
1533  and  in  cartulary  copies  in  the  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure 
(Vernier,  no.  12,  who  does  not  discuss  the  date);  the  other  the 
foundation  charter  of  Bernai,  preserved  only  in  copies  from  which  it 
has  been  edited  by  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  i.  284  (less  correctly  in  Neustria 
Pia,  p.  398;  extract  in  La  Roque,  iii.  165).  The  impossibility  of  recon- 
ciling the  various  elements  in  this  date  has  been  evident  since  the  time 
of  Du  Monstier  and  Mabillon  {Annates,  iv.  286),  who  ascribed  the 
difficulty  to  an  error  in  copying  1027  instead  of  1026  or  1025.  We  now 
know  that  the  original  has,  not  only  1027,  but  a  regnal  year,  the 
thirty-sixth,  which  corresponds  to  no  known  style  of  Robert  (Pfister, 
£tudes  sur  Robert  le  Pieux,  pp.  xlii-xliv) ;  yet  according  to  the  narra- 
tive sources  Richard  II  died  23  August  1026  {ibid.,  p.  216,  note  6;  cf. 
Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  p.  50,  note  i).  Norman  scholars  have  generally 
agreed  to  follow  the  indiction,  which  together  with  the  regnal  year  (38) 
of  the  charters  for  Jumieges  and  Bernai,  gives  August  1025  as  the  date 
of  the  three  charters  and  thus  brings  them  into  agreement  with  the 
chronology  of  the  period  so  far  as  it  has  yet  been  estabUshed.  See 
Le  Prevost,  Eure,  i.  283  (cf.  however  his  edition  of  Ordericus,  i.  175, 
note  2,  ii.  10,  note  2);  Sauvage,  Troarn,  p.  11,  note  2. 


2S8 


APPENDIX  B 


6 

1025-1026 

Grant  to  Fecamp  by  Rainald,  vicomte  of  Argues,  attested  by  Richard  II, 
of  all  his  possessions  at  Arques  and  in  the  county  of  Arques  and  at  San- 
tignyi  ?),  and  the  churches  of  Saint-Aubin  and  TourvUle  {Seine-In- 
ferieure). 

A,  original  lost;  B,  figured  copy  of  ca.  iioo  in  the  Archives  of  the 
Seine-Inferieure;  C,  copy  of  B  by  A.  Deville,  MS.  Lat,  n.  a.  1245, 
f.  III. 

Published  with  facsimile  by  Chevreux  and  Vernier,  Les  archives  de 
Normandie  et  de  la  Seine-Inferieure,  plate  9,  from  B,  which  is  called  an 
original  of  ca.  1 100,  the  relation  to  Richard  II  being  overlooked. 

The  charter  belongs  to  the  very  end  of  Richard  EE's  reign,  as  its 
grants  are  not  included  in  those  confirmed  in  no.  5,  while  they  are 
specifically  enimierated  by  Robert  I  in  no.  10.  This  charter  and  its 
confirmation  by  Robert  I  are  cited  in  a  charter  of  WiUiam,  coimt  of 
Arques,  18  July  1047:  original  in  Musee  de  la  Benedictine,  no.  5  bis; 
printed  in  Martene  and  Durand,  Thesaurus  Anecdotorutn,  i.  166; 
Brussel,  Usage  des  fiefs  (1750),  i.  84. 

7 

xz  April  1028  (or  1034),  at  Fecamp 

Charter  of  Robert  I  authorizing  an  exchange  between  Bishop  Eugh  of 
Bayeux  and  the  monks  of  Fecamp  with  reference  to  Argences,  and  provid- 
ing that  disputes  respecting  the  agreement  shotUd  be  brought  before  his 
court. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  in  lost  cartulary  of  12th  century;  C,  copy 
from  B  by  Dom  Lenoir  in  Collection  Moreau,  xxi.  9. 

Unpublished;  cf.  E.  H.  R.,  xxxi.  264,  no.  8;  infra.  Appendix  C,  p. 
272,  no.  8. 

The  omission  of  any  reference  to  the  abbot  makes  it  probable  that 
this  charter  belongs  to  1028,  between  the  resignation  of  William  of 
Dijon  and  the  consecration  of  John.  If  the  leuva  of  Argences  included 
in  no.  10  had  already  been  granted  to  the  abbey,  it  would  probably  be 
mentioned  specifically  in  this  charter.  The  prolonged  difficulties  be- 
tween the  duke  and  Bishop  Hugh  are  another  reason  for  placing  the 
charter  early  in  Robert's  reign  (William  of  Jumieges,  bk.  vi,  c.  5). 

Rotbertus  nutu  Dei  Northmannorum  dux  omnibus  fidelibus  nostris 
cuiuscumque  ordinis,  indominicatis  scilicet  et  vavassoribus  seu  ubicumque 


EARLY  CHARTERS  FOR  FECAMP 


259 


in  Christum  credentibus,  notitiam  et  commutuationem  quam  salva  fide  in 
memoriam  tarn  presentibus  quam  futuris  litteris  tradere  disponimus.  No- 
tum  sit  igitur  vobis  quod  Hugo  Baiocacensis  §cclesig  episcopus  venit  ad 
meam  mercedem  castro  Fiscanni  die  Cgn§  Dominicg  qug  habita  est  eo  anno 
.iii.  idus  Aprilis,  in  quo  castro  in  honore  summg  et  individug  Trinitatis  bong 
memorig  avus  meus  et  pater  monasterium  constnixerunt  ac  villis  et  orna- 
mentis  honorifice  decoraverunt  et,  quod  melius  est,  monachis  pro  animabus 
nostris  Deo  cotidie  servientibus  deputaverimt.  Deprecatus  est  autem  mer- 
cedem meam  ut  apud  ipsius  monasterii  monachos  impetrarem  ut  terram  qug 
dicitur  Argentias  quam  pr§notatus  avus  meus  R.  nobilis  dux  altario  eiusdem 
sanctg  et  individug  Trinitatis  in  dotem  tradidit  ei  commutuarent.  Quod 
post  multas  eorum  excusationes  tandem  obtinui.  Fecerunt  itaque  per  tales 
tamen  convenientias :  Episcopus  debet  dare  monachis  centum  hospites  ad 
presens  qui  totas  diptas  reddant  et  liberos  ab  omni  meo  servicio  vel  costumis 
per  meam  auctoritatem  et  per  meum  donum  in  alodum  et  hereditatem  per- 
petuam,  et  tres  §cclesias  et  xx''  francos  homines  in  locis  qui  appellantur 
Boiavilla,  Brunvilla,  Penloi,  Lexartum  cum  portu  piscatorio,  cum  silvis, 
pasciiis,  et  omnibus  pertinentiis  suis,  et  villam  qug  dicitur  Vetus  Redum  cum 
molendino  et  omnibus  appendiciis  eius;  et  debet  recipere  ab  ipsis  monachis 
predictam  terram,  id  est  Argentias,  per  tale  conventmn  ut  usque  dum  vixerit 
teneat  et  post  obitum  eius  monachi  eam  statim  recipiant,  id  est  ipsam  villam 
Argentias,  per  meam  licentiam  sine  contradictione  ahcuius  potestatis  cuius- 
libet  ordinis  seu  magn§  parvgque  persong,  sic  ex  integro  cum  terris,  vineis, 
molendinis,  silvis,  pratis,  aquis,  et  mercato  forensi  seu  omnibus  appendiciis 
eius  absque  ulla  calumnia,  sicut  unquam  melius  tenuerunt ;  et  ipsos  centum 
hospites  quos  episcopus  donat,  sicut  prgdictum  est,  in  prenominatis  locis 
ciun  omnibus  suis  appendiciis  similiter  cum  ipsa  post  obitum  episcopi  teneant 
et  possideant  iure  hereditario  in  alodum  ex  mea  parte  concessum  sicut  pre- 
dictum  est.  Notmn  quoque  esse  volo  quia  ilia  terra  quam  dat  episcopus 
quorundam  hominum  calumniis  refutata  est  a  monachis  postquam  has 
convenientias  inc§pimus  antequam  perficeremus,  et  postea  a  me  et  ab  ipso 
episcopo  tali  convenientia  est  data  et  ab  eis  recepta  ut  si  per  iUam  calumniam 
damnum  aliquod  ipsi  monachi  habuerint,  duas  reclamationes  in  mea  corte 
vel  curia  faciant,  et  si  tunc  ego  et  episcopus  non  acquitaverimus  eam,  mo- 
nachi per  meam  licentiam  sine  contradictione  vel  malivolentia  episcopi  vel 
ahcuius  hominis  reveniant  ad  villam  suam  Argentias  et  recipiant  eam  et 
teneant  et  possideant  absque  ullo  deinceps  cambio.  Si  quis  vero  contra 
hanc  nostrg  auctoritatis  commutuationem  ah'quando  temerario  ausu  inferre 
calumniam  presumpserit,  primitus  ab  ipso  Deo  patre  omnipotente  et  a  filio 
eius  imigenito  domino  nostro  et  a  spiritu  sancto  sit  maledictus  et  excom- 
municatus  et  a  beata  Dei  genitrice  Maria  et  electo  archangelo  Michaele, 
Gabriele,  Raphaele,  et  ab  omnibus  cglestium  virtutum  spiritibus  et  omnibus 
patriarchis  prophetis  apostohs  martyribus  confessoribus  virginibus  viduis  et 
omnibus  electis  Dei,  et  sit  in  gterna  damnatione  cum  Dathan  et  Abiron  quos 
vivos  terra  absorbuit  et  cum  luda  traditore  qui  Dominum  precio  tradidit 
necnon  et  cum  his  qui  dixerimt  Deo,  Recede  a  nobis, scientiam  viarum  tuarum 
nolumus,  nisi  digna  satisfactione  emendaverit.  Amen. 


26o 


APPENDIX  B 


8 

1028-1035 

Charter  of  Robert  I  restoring  to  Fecamp  Argences  and  other  domains. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  official  copy  of  1688  in  Archives  of  the  Seine- 
Inferieure,  according  to  Delisle;  these  archives  and  the  fonds  of  the 
barony  of  Argences  in  the  Archives  of  the  Calvados  have  been  searched 
without  success. 

Extracts  in  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur-le-Vicomte,  pieces,  no.  10;  cf.  infra, 
Appendix  C,  no.  9. 

This  charter  is  evidently  posterior  to  no.  7.  Argences  is  not  one  of 
the  places  claimed  by  Hugh  of  Bayeux  after  Robert's  death  {Livre 
noir,  no.  21.) 

9 

Ca.  1034-1035 

Charter  of  Robert  I  granting  Saint-Taurin  of  £,vreux  in  exchange  for 
Montivilliers  as  a  dependency  of  Fecamp. 

A,  original  lost.  Printed  in  Martene  and  Durand,  Thesaurus  Anec- 
dotorum,  i.  154.    Cf.  Appendix  C,  no.  10. 

Evidently  not  long  anterior  to  the  foundation  of  Monti viUiers  13 
January  1035  (Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  326;  infra,  Appendix  C, 
no.  17). 

10 

I032-I035 

Charter  of  Robert  I  enumerating  his  grants  of  lands  and  knights  to 
Fecamp,  including  the  gifts  of  Rainald  of  Argues  (no.  6).^ 

Supposed  originals,  unsealed,  in  Musee  de  la  Benedictine,  with  iden- 
tical witnesses  but  differences  in  content:  A  (no.  3  bis),  on  long,  some- 
what irregular,  unruled  piece  of  parchment,  with  frequent  use  of  the 
form  ae  and  with  crosses  in  different  hands  before  ten  of  the  witnesses; 
B  (no.  4  bis),  on  broad,  ruled  parchment,  written  in  a  closer  hand,  with 

1  The  places  mentioned,  which  lie  chiefly  in  the  Pays  de  Caux,  are  Petitville, 
ficretteville,  Bemai  (Eure  ?),  filetot,  Arques,  Tour\ille-sur-Fecamp,  Argences 
(Calvados),  OnrviUe,  Oissel-sur-Seine,  Sorquainville,  Bennetot,  Biville-la-Martel, 
Ypreville,  Riville,  Ermenouville(?),  Neville,  AnglesqueviUe,  and  Caen.  Santinia- 
cus  villa  (cf.  no.  6)  and  Corhnlma  I  have  not  identified,  unless  the  latter  be  the 
'  insula  Oscelli  que  et  Turhuhnus  dicitur '  (He  de  Bedanne)  of  the  cartulary  of 
La  Trinite-du-Mont,  no.  82 ;  cf.  Toussaint  Duplessis,  Description  de  la  Haute 
Normandie,  ii.  121,  274. 


EARLY  CHARTERS  FOR  FECAMP 


261 


crosses,  apparently  in  the  same  hand,  before  all  the  witnesses;  C, 
copies  by  Dom  Lenoir  in  Collection  Moreau,  cccxh.  12,  15;  D,  ditto  at 
Semilly,  Ixx.  525. 

UnpubUshed;  see  the  facsimiles,  plates  4  and  5.  Extracts  in  La 
Roque,  iii.  19,  iv.  1323;  cf.  E.  H.  R.,  xxxi.  264,  nos.  6,  7;  infra,  Appen- 
dix C,  nos.  6,  7. 

Subsequent  to  the  accession  of  Gradulf  as  abbot  of  Saint- Wandrille, 
whose  predecessor  died  29  November  103 1.  Junguene,  archbishop  of 
Dol,  whose  latest  attestation  in  charters  is  of  1032,  seems  to  have  been 
active  in  the  service  of  Count  Alan  III  for  a  year  or  two  longer;  his 
successor  cannot  be  traced  before  1040.  See  Gallia  Christiana,  xiv. 
1045;  La  Borderie,  in  Revue  de  Bretagne,  1891,  i.  264-267;  id.,  Histoire 
de  Bretagne,  iii.  10  f. 

The  signature  of  Edward  the  Confessor  as  king  renders  it  rather 
likely  that  neither  A  nor  B  is  an  original,  although  it  is  not  impossible 
that  he  used  this  title  in  Canute's  lifetime,  as  in  a  questionable  charter 
for  Mont-Saint-Michel  (see  Appendix  C,  p.  273).  Further  doubt  is 
thrown  upon  B  by  the  broad  grant  of  authority  to  the  abbot  in  the  last 
sentence.  The  contents  of  A  seem  to  me  genuine,  and  the  royal  tit'e  of 
Edward  would  be  a  natural  addition  in  an  early  copy. 

A  and  B 

In  nomine  patris  et  filii  et  spiritus  sancti.^  Ego  Rotbertus  filius  secundi 
Richardi  nutu  Dei  Northmannorum  ducis  et  ipse  per  gratiam  Dei  princeps  et 
dx  {sic)  Northmannorum  notum  fieri  volo  tam  presentibus  quam  futuris  ea 
quae  respectu  gratiae  Dei  contuli  universorum  domino  sanctae  scilicet  et 
individug  trinitati  in  loco  qui  dicitur  Fiscannus  post  decessum  patris  mei 
pro  salute  animg  meg  et  predecessorum  meorum  fratrum  quoque  et  sororum. 
Quae  omnia  nominanter  subter  ^  asscribere  volui  ne  memorig  laberentur  sub- 
sequenti  posteritate  haec  sunt:  Pitit  villa  cum  omnibus  sibi  pertinentiis ; 
quidam  ^  homines  mei  scib'cet  milites  cum  omnibus  sibi  pertinentibus;  hii 
sunt  Hundul  filius  Gosmanni  et  nepotes  eius  filii  Bloc,  Walterius  quoque 
fiJius  Girulfi,  filii  Gonfredi  omnes  de  Gervinivilla,  TorquitU  filius  Adlec, 
lustaldus  clericus  et  Rodulfus  laicus  fratresque  eorum  filii  Hugonis  de  Barda 
villa.  Dedi  autem  terram  quae  Scrot  villa  dicitur  cum  omnibus  suis  appen- 
diciis.  Reddidi  etiam  totam  medietatem  Bernai  viUg  cum  omnibus  que  ad 
ipsam  medietatem  pertinent  ex  integro.  Dedi  etiam  villam  quae  dicitiu- 
Eslettot.  Reddidi  quoque  omnem  terram  quam  Rainaldus  vicecomes  apud 
Areas  et  in  Tvuvilla  et  Santiniaco  villa  tenere  videbatur  cum  aeclesiis  et 
molendinis  et  bosco  qui  dicitur  Appasilva,  cum  salinis,  piscariis,  pratis,  hos- 
pitibus,  et  omnibus  appenditiis  suis  et  omnibus  hominibus  qui  sibi  subiecti 

*  '  -f-m  NOMINE  PATEIS  ET  FILII  ET  SPOUTUS  SANCt[i  a]mEN,'  B. 

*  Om.  B.  *  B  om.  qnidam  .  .  .  quae  (before  Scrot  villa). 


262 


APPENDIX  B 


fuenmt.  [Dedi  '  quoque  silvam  quae  Bocolunda  '  didtur  iuxta  Fiscannum  ex 
toto.  Commutuavi  autem  eis  silvam  quam  inter  duas  aquas  dicunt  ex  utra- 
que  parte  et  omnia  que  ad  eam  pertinent.  Dedi  quoque  terram  qu§  Hurvilla 
dicitur  quam  raea  avia  pro  salute  parentum  nostrorum  et  sua  Fiscanni  loco 
destinavit,  cellarium  insuper  et  vineam.  Contuli '  etiam  alios  milites,  scilicet] 
Osbertum  filium  Gosmanni  cum  suo  alodo  et  Ursonem  et  Willelmum  eius 
fratrem  filios  videlicet  Anslecci.  Donavi  apud  Argentias  leuvam  iuxta 
morem  patriae  nostrae  propter  mercatum  ipsius  villae.  Haec  omnia  pro 
salute  anim§  meae  et  parentum  meorum  soli  Deo  trino  *  et  uno  vivo  et  vero 
contuli.  Siquis  autem,  quod  fieri  non  credo,  contra  banc  nostr§  preceptionis 
cartulam  contraire  aut  calumpniam  inferre  temptaverit,  cum  luda  traditore 
partem  habeat  si  non  emendaverit.  Ut  vero  firma  et  stabilita  haec  descriptio 
permaneat,  manu  propria  subter  afiirmo  et  fidelibus  meis  firmare  precipio. 
Reddidi  etiam  decimam  de  feriis  de  Cadumo.  Dedi  quoque  piscariam  quod 
vulgo  gordum  dicitur  apud  Oscellum  villam.  Dedi  decimsis  de  pratis  in  villa 
que  dicitur  Corhulma.  Donavi  nihilominus  Ansfredum  de  Soastichin  villa 
cum  omni  terra  sua  ubicunque  tenere  videbatur. 

B 

Sed  et  terram  Hugonis  de  Sortichin  villa  et  de  Barda  villa  ubicunque 
tenere  videbantur  de  me  in  Calz  et  terram  Walter  filii  Girulfi  de  Hastingi- 
villa  et  omnem  terram  filiorum  Bloc  et  terram  Hundul  filii  Gosmanni  quam 
de  me  tenere  videbantur  in  Calz,  id  est  Bernetot  et  Buie  villam  cum  aliis 
sibi  pertinentiis  et  terram  Osberti  filii  Gosmanni  omne  eius  alodum,  id  est 
Ypram  villam  et  Rivillam,  et  terram  filiorum  Anslec,  id  est  Ermendi  villam 
cum  omnibus  qu§  ad  ipsam  pertinent  et  omne  alodum  eorum  (?)videbatuj 
in  Calz.  Dedi  quoque  Nevillam  et  omne  alodum  filiorum  Audoeni  ubicumque 
tenere  videbantur  de  me.  Dedi  terram  filiorum  Turfredi,  id  est  Anglis- 
cavillam  et  omne  alodum  eorum  in  Calz,  et  terram  filiorum  Gonberti  de 
Gervini  villa  et  terram  Gazel  quam  de  me  tenebat  in  Fischanno,  id  est  cam- 
partum  de  Fischanno  et  aliquos  hospites,  et  terram  Murieldis  de  Ambhda  et 
in  Cadomo  unum  burgarium  ad  pontum  et  terram  Rotberti  de  Habvilla. 
Ista  igitur  bona  et  omnia  alia  qu§  Fischannensi  monasterio  oHm  donata  sunt 
sub  solius  abbatis  potestate  et  iusticia  constituimus  ut  nullius  dignitatis 
homo  aliquando  manum  intromittere  presumat. 

A  and  B 

+Signum  Rotberti  Normannorvun  duels.  +Signum  Willelmi  filii  eius. 
+Signum  domni  Rotberti  archiepiscopi.  +Signum  Rotberti  episcopi. 
Signum  Gingoloi  archiepiscopi.  Signum  domni  lohannis  abbatis.  +Signum 
Willelmi  abbatis.  Signum  Gradulfi  abbatis.  Signimi  Rainerii  abbatis. 
+Signum  Durandi  abbatis.  +Signum  Isemberti  abbatis.  +Signum 
Edwardi  regis.    Signum  Balduini  comitis.    Signimi  Ingelranni  comitis. 

*  In  A  the  three  lines  printed  in  brackets  are  written  more  closely  over  an  erasure. 
'  Buculunda,  B. 

^  B  cm.  contuli  .  .  .  Anslecci. 

•  A.  caps. 


EARLY  CHARTERS  FOR  FECAMP 


263 


Signum  Gisleberti  comitis.  Signum  Negelli.  Signum  Osberti  senscali(  ?) 
+Signum  Unfredi  vetuli.  Signum  Richardi  vicecomitis.  Signum  Gozilini 
vicecomitis.  Signum  Turstini  vicecomitis.  Signum  Aymonis  vicecomitis. 
Signum  Toroldi  constabilarii. 

11 

Forged  charter  of  William  the  Conqueror  confirming  Fecamp  in  posses- 
sion of  Saint-Gervais  of  Rouen,  free  from  all  subjection  to  the  archbishop, 
as  granted  by  Richard  II. 

A,  pretended  original  in  a  late  hand,  apparently  of  the  fourteenth 
century,  in  Musee  de  la  Benedictine,  unnumbered;  see  the  facsimile, 
plate  6.  B,  vidimus  of  Pope  Benedict  XIII,  28  June  1404,  copied  in 
Fecamp  cartulary  (C)  and  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure  (D). 

Delisle,  S.-Sauveur,  pieces,  no.  43,  from  CD;  Round,  Calendar, 
no.  113,  from  D.  Cf.  A.  H.  R.,  xiv.  459,  note  41. 

Delisle  declared  this  charter  a  forgery  because  of  the  combination  of 
William's  royal  style  with  witnesses  dead  long  before  1066.  Round, 
p.  xxvi,  explained  the  anachronism  as  an  "  interpolation  by  a  long  sub- 
sequent scribe,"  and  assigned  the  document  to  "  the  critical  years 
1035-1037,"  with  which  he  found  the  hst  of  witnesses  "  wholly  con- 
sistent ";  while  F.  M.  Stenton,  William  the  Conqueror,  p.  75  f.,  elabo- 
rates from  it  the  entourage  of  the  young  duke.  The  charter  is  a  rank 
fabrication  of  a  later  age.  The  royal  style  of  1066  flf.  is  in  the  pretended 
original;  the  handwriting  is  painfully  imitated;  John,  who  is  repre- 
sented as  receiving  the  original  gift  from  Richard,  became  abbot  under 
Robert  I.  The  obvious  purpose  was  to  strengthen  the  priory  against 
the  archbishop,  who  is  not  mentioned  in  Richard  II's  original  grant 
(no.  5).  The  penal  clause  is  copied  from  Richard's  charter.  The 
witnesses  are  taken  bodily  from  Robert's  charter,  no.  10;  Durand  of 
Cerisy  was  probably  no  longer  abbot  by  1035. 

12 

Forged  charter  of  William  the  Conqueror  confirming  to  Fecamp  its 
lands  in  England  with  royal  liberty  and  jurisdiction,  free  from  all  secular 
service,  and  its  possessions  in  Normandy  as  granted  in  the  charter  of  his 
predecessor  Count  Richard. 

A,  pretended  original  in  Musee  de  la  Benedictine,  no.  7;  B,  early 
copy  in  Public  Record  Office,  Cartae  Antiquae,  S.  i ;  C,  cartulary,  MS. 
Rouen  1207,  f.  3. 


264 


APPENDIX  B 


Monasticon,  vii.  1082,  from  B.  Cf.  Report  of  the  Deputy  Keeper, 
xxix.  app.,  p.  42;  Davis,  Regesta,  no.  112.  The  charter  in  Neustria  Pia, 
p.  223,  is  apparently  a  truncated  copy  of  this;  there  is  also  an  extract 
in  La  Roque,  iv.  2219. 

The  style  of  the  charter  and  the  extraordinary  privileges  which  it 
purports  to  grant  are  sufficient  to  condemn  it,  quite  apart  from  the 
appearance  of  the  pretended  original.  A  connection  with  a  forged 
grant  concerning  the  abbot's  rights  in  Steyning,  which  is  abstracted  in 
the  charter  rolls  {Calendar,  i.  322;  Davis,  no.  253),  has  been  pointed 
out  by  Round,  E.  H.  R.,  xxix.  348;  this  may  be  merely  an  extract  from 
the  fuller  charter.  As  indicated  above,  the  inflation  of  no.  1 2  is  rather 
on  the  EngUsh  than  on  the  Norman  side,  where  it  repeats  the  language 
of  Richard's  charter  Propitia  (no.  5). 


APPENDIX  C 


THE  MATERIALS  FOR  THE  REIGN  OF  ROBERT  I^ 

Robert  I,  commonly  called  Robert  the  Magnificent  or,  for  no  good 
reason,  Robert  the  Devil,  is  one  of  the  less  known  figures  in  the  series 
of  Norman  dukes.  His  reign  was  brief  and  left  few  records,  and  it  was 
naturally  overshadowed  by  that  of  his  more  famous  son,  yet  we  shall 
never  understand  the  Normandy  of  the  Conqueror's  time  without  some 
acquaintance  with  the  period  immediately  preceding.  The  modern 
sketches  are  scanty  and  unsatisfactory,  and  while  the  extant  evidence 
does  not  permit  of  a  full  or  adequate  narrative,  they  can  be  replaced 
only  when  the  available  material  has  been  more  fully  utilized  and  more 
carefully  sifted.  In  this  direction  the  publication  of  a  critical  edition  of 
William  of  Jumieges  has  at  last  provided  the  necessary  point  of 
departure.^ 

The  fundamental  account  is,  of  course,  the  sixth  book  of  the  Ju- 
mieges chronicler,  who  expressly  declares  himself  a  contemporary  of 
the  events  therein  recounted.*  For  many  episodes  this  is  our  only  con- 
temporary authority,  so  that  it  is  especially  important  to  fix  its  value 
by  checking  it  at  the  points  where  we  have  other  evidence,  as  well  as  to 
supplement  its  meager  outline  by  information  found  elsewhere.  On  the 
narrative  side  the  contemporary  material  is  fragmentary  and  scattered, 
consisting  of  the  bare  mention  of  Robert's  accession  and  death  in  the 
annals,  and  of  disconnected  references  in  the  hagiographical  literature. 
The  dates  of  Robert's  accession  (6  August  1027)  *  and  death  (1-3  July 

'  Revised  from£.  H.  R.,  xxxi.  257-268  (1916).  On  Robert's  reign  see,  besides  the 
older  histories  of  Normandy,  Sir  Francis  Palgrave,  History  of  Normandy  and  Eng- 
land, iii.  141-190;  E.  A.  Freeman,  Norman  Conquest  (1877),  ii.  179-191;  F.  M. 
Stenton,  William  the  Conqueror,  pp.  63-72. 

2  Guillaume  de  Jumieges,  Gesla  Normannorum  Ducum,  ed.  Marx  (Rouen,  1914). 
See  my  review,  E.  H.  R.,  xxxi.  150-153. 

'  '  Quorum  actus  partim  intuitu  partim  veracium  relatu  comperimus  ':  bk.  vi, 
c.  I. 

*  C.  Pfister  {£tudes  sur  la  vie  et  le  regne  de  Robert  le  Pieux,  p.  216,  note),  who  does 
not,  however,  meet  all  the  difBculties  of  chronology  connected  with  the  date  of 
Richard  Ill's  death,  particularly  the  irreconcilable  elements  in  the  dates  of  the  ducal 
charters  of  this  period.  Cf.  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  i.  283.  Unfortunately  the  two  dated 
charters  of  Robert,  neither  of  which  is  an  original,  are  not  decisive  as  to  his  acces- 
sion, that  for  Cerisy  (see  list  below,  no.  3)  placing  November  1032  in  his  fifth  year, 

26s 


266 


APPENDIX  C 


1035)  '  are  fixed  by  the  aid  of  the  local  necrologies;  the  pilgrimage  is 
mentioned  by  contemporaries  like  Ralph  Glaber®  and  the  Translatio 
S.  Vulganii.''  The  Vita  Herluini  speaks  of  his  relations  with  Gilbert  of 
Brionne;  ^  the  Translatio  Beati  Nicasii  places  him  and  his  followers  at 
Rouen  on  12  December  1032;^  Hugh  of  Flavigny  describes  his 
reUance  upon  the  counsel  of  Richard  of  Saint- Vannes.  The  most  inter- 
esting of  these  writers  is  the  author  of  the  Miracula  S.  Wulframni,  a 
monk  of  Saint- Wandrille  who  wrote  shortly  after  1053  and  who 
characterizes  Robert  as  follows:  " 

Hie  autem  Rotbertus  acer  animo  at  prudens  priores  suos  virtute  quidem 
et  potentia  exequavit ;  sed  pravorum  consultui,  utpote  in  primevo  iuventutis 
flora  constitutus,  aquo  amplius  attandans  regnum  quod  florens  suscaperat  in 
multis  debilitavit.  Varum  non  multo  post,  celesti  respectus  gratia  et  bona 
que  inarat  illi  natura  et  consilii  iutus,  resipuit  et  eos  quorum  pravitate  a 
recto  daviaverat  a  suo  consilio  atque  famiL'aritate  sequestravit  sueque  iugo 
potentia  versa  vice  fortiter  oppressit  ac  sa  in  libertatam  qua  sa  decabat 
vindicavit  atqua  ita  propter  pretaritorum  ignorantiam  profactus  Hiarosoli- 
mam  profunda  penituit.  Sed  in  redeundo  malignorimi  parpassus  insidias,  qui 
eius  equum  (quod  iam  experti  erant)  varabantiu  imparium,  vanaficio,  ut 
didicimus,  apud  urbam  Niceam  occubuit  ibiqua  intra  sanctam  civitatis  illius 
basilicam  (quod  nuUi  alii  mortalium  concassum  est)  honorifica  donari  sapul- 
tura  promaruit.  Varum  vir  tantus  non  pravorum  tantiun  malignitata  quam 
divino,  ut  credi  fas  est,  iudicio  dacessit,  qui  iam  unus  eorum  effactus  arat 
quibus,  ut  apostolus  conqueritur,  dignus  non  erat  mundus. 

Here  the  characterization  is  fuller  than  in  William  of  Jumieges,^ 
but  the  fundamental  agreement  is  striking  and  shows  the  view  of 
Robert's  character  which  prevailed  among  ecclesiastical  writers.  The 
very  phrase  '  pravorum  consultui '  recurs  in  William    and,  substan- 

and  that  for  Montivilliers  (no.  17)  placing  January  1035  in  his  eighth.  Cf.  the  ques- 
tion of  the  date  of  the  charters  of  Richard  II,  dated  1027:  Appendix  B,  no.  5. 

'  H.  F.,  xxiii.  420,  487,  579;  P.  de  Farcy,  Abbayes  du  diocese  de  Bayeux,  i.  72. 
Ordericus,  i.  179,  gives  i  July. 

*  Ed.  Prou,  p.  108.  Robert  is  not  mentioned  in  Ralph's  life  of  St.  William  of 
Dijon,  who  died  at  Fecamp  in  1031:  Migne,  Palrologia,  cxlii.  720. 

'  Analecta  BoUandiana,  xxiii.  269. 

*  Migne,  cl.  697,  699;  J.  Armitage  Robinson,  Gilbert  Crispin,  pp.  87,  90.  Cf. 
Robert's  relations  with  Serlo  of  Hauteville:  Geoffrey  Malaterra,  Historic  Sictda, 
bk.  i,  c.  38  f. 

'  Migne,  cbdi.  1165  f. 

1°  M.  G.  H.,  Scriptores,  viii.  401;  cf.  infra,  note  17. 

"  D'Achery,  Spicilegium  (Paris,  1723),  ii.  288;  Mabillon,  Acta  Sanctorum 
Ordinis  S.  Benedicti  (Venice,  1734),  iii-  353- 

"  Bk.  vi,  cc.  2,  3, 12.       "  Bk.  vi,  c.  3:  'pravorum  consultu  sponte  sibi  delegit.' 


TEE  REIGN  OF  ROBERT  I 


267 


tially,  in  a  charter  of  Abbot  Gradulf  of  Saint- Wandrille,  shortly  after 
1035,  who  saw  no  occasion  for  redressing  the  balance  by  a  glorification 
at  the  end: " 

Quam  filins  eius  et  ab  illo  tardus  in  regno  Robertus,  in  etate  iuvenili 
perversonim  consilio  depravatus,  supradicto  sancto  abstulerat  confessori. 
Quo  defuncto  et  a  presentibus  sublato,  filioque  illius  succedente  in  regni 
honore  paterno,  ego  abbas  Gradulf  us,  diu  dampnum  tarn  grave  perpessus,etc. 

Such  phrases,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  troubles  with  Archbishop 
Robert  and  Bishop  Hugh  of  Bayeux  described  by  WilUam  of  Jumieges,^' 
show  plainly  that  there  was  a  strong  reaction  against  the  church  at 
the  beginning  of  Robert's  reign,  a  reaction  afterwards  ascribed  to 
evil  counselors  and  covered  up  by  the  all-sufficing  merit  of  the  duke's 
pilgrimage  and  death.'®  The  facts  were  evidently  too  flagrant  to  be 
ignored  by  Wilham  of  Jumieges,  favorable  as  is  his  narrative  to  the 
ducal  house;  not  until  the  time  of  Wace  could  they  be  entirely  passed 
over.  The  story  that  Richard  III  was  poisoned  by  Robert  may  be  in 
same  way  connected  with  the  misdeeds  of  this  period.  To  these  years 
should  probably  be  referred  the  troubles  between  the  duke  and  his 
barons  described  by  Hugh  of  Flavigny  in  his  curious  account  of  the 
diaboHcal  machinations  of  Ermenaldus  the  Breton,  whom  Richard  of 
Saint- Vannes  carried  off  to  Verdun  after  reestabhshing  peace  in  Nor- 
mandy, but  who  returned  and  by  means  of  the  wager  of  battle  secured 
the  condemnation  of  several  Norman  leaders  at  the  duke's  hands. 

The  next  set  of  authorities  consists  of  the  interpolators  of  WilHam  of 
Jumieges.  The  first  group  of  interpolations,  assigned  by  Marx  to  a 
monk  of  Saint-fitienne  of  Caen  writing  under  Robert  Curthose,  com- 
prises two  episodes  (c.  8  bis)  illustrating  Robert's  generosity,  that  of 
the  smith  of  Beauvais  and  that  of  the  poor  knight,  and  (c.  11)  the 
story  of  Robert's  magnificence  at  Constantinople,  as  exemplified  by 
the  mule  shod  with  gold  and  the  fire  fed  with  nuts.  No  source  is  cited 

**  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  p.  61.  Cf.  Vernier,  no.  13:  'perversonim  consiliis  illectus.' 
Bk.  vi,  cc.  3,  s-  Cf.  Fulbert  of  Chartres,  in  Migne,  cxli.  225;  and  the  losses  of 
Hugh  of  Bayeux  indicated  in  the  Livre  noir,  no.  21. 

"  On  Robert's  end  cf.  Translatio  S.  Vtdganii,  in  Analecia  BoUandiana,  xxiii.  269. 
M.  G.  H.,  Scriptores,  viii.  401:  '  Inflammatur  princeps  adversus  optimates, 
fiunt  discidia,  excitantur  iurgia,  et  uno  intestino  bello  tota  debachatur  Normannia.' 
Besides  the  information  accessible  to  him  in  the  east  of  France,  Hugh  had  oppor- 
tunity to  become  acquainted  with  Norman  traditions  during  his  visit  to  Normandy 
in  1096  {ibid.,  369,  393  f.,  399,  407,  475,  482);  his  presence  in  Normandy  is  proved 
by  an  exchange  between  Saint-B6nigne  and  Saint-fidenne  of  Caen  which  he  attests 
and  by  a  charter  of  24  May  1096  which  he  dreifted:  supra,  p.  75  f. 


268 


APPENDIX  C 


for  the  last  of  these,  which  was  probably,  as  we  shall  see,  the  common 
property  of  the  period;  but  the  earlier  episodes  are  recounted  on  the 
express  authority  of  Isembert,  chaplain  of  the  duke  and  later  abbot  of 
Holy  Trinity  at  Rouen,'*  so  that  they  have  contemporary  value.  The 
additions  of  Ordericus,  made  before  1109,  are  confined  to  a  fuller  ac- 
count of  the  family  of  Belleme,  for  which  he  could  draw  on  the  local 
traditions  of  the  region.'^  In  his  Historia  Ecclesiastica  he  adds  certain 
further  details  respecting  the  reign:  the  founding  of  Cerisy  (ed.  Le 
Prevost,  ii.  11);  the  reconciliation  by  the  duke  of  Gilbert  of  Brionne 
and  the  house  of  Gere  (ii.  25);  the  banishment  of  Osmund  Drengot 
(ii.  53);  the  death  of  Dreux,  count  of  the  Vexin,  on  the  pilgrimage 
(ii.  102,  iii.  224  f.);  and  a  fuller  account  of  the  relations  of  the  duke  to 
King  Henry  I,  including  the  grant  of  the  Vexin  (iii.  223  f.). 

If,  as  Stubbs  thought  probable,^"  Orderic's  contemporary  William  of 
Malmesbury  made  use  of  WUliam  of  Jumieges,  he  has  no  confirmatory 
value  where  the  two  accounts  agree,  as  in  the  mention  of  the  duke's  aid 
to  King  Henry  I  or  his  tears  and  gifts  at  the  Holy  Sepulchre.^'  The 
Malmesbury  chronicler  adds  the  rvunor  that  the  pilgrimage  was  under- 
taken in  atonement  for  the  poisoning  of  Richard  III;  the  name  of  the 
follower  guilty  of  Robert's  death,  '  Radulfus  cognomento  Mowinus  '; 
the  guardianship  by  the  king  of  France;  and,  in  very  brief  form,  the 
story  of  Arlette  so  fully  developed  by  Wace,  including  her  dream  and 
the  omen  attending  the  Conqueror's  birth.^ 

Of  subsequent  writers  much  the  most  important  is  Wace,  who  gives 
a  full  narrative  of  the  reign  which  is  repeated  by  Benoit  de  Sainte- 
More  and  the  later  vernacular  chroniclers  and  has  been  used  without 
discrimination  by  modern  writers.  The  question  of  Wace's  sources, 
first  seriously  attacked  by  Gustav  Korting  in  1867,^  requires  a  more 
thorough  treatment  upon  the  basis  of  the  more  abundant  material  and 
the  more  critical  editions  now  available.   His  close  dependence  on 

'  Hoc  referre  solitus  erat  de  duce  Rodberto  Isembertus,  primum  quidem  eius 
capellanus,  postmodum  vero  Sancti  Audoeni  monachus,  et  ad  extremum  abbas 
Sancte  Trinitatis.' 

"  He  also  gives  the  name  of  the  commander  of  the  fleet,  Rabel,  in  c.  11.  See 
injra,  p.  275  and  note  41. 

Gesta  Regum,  p.  xxi,  citing  the  text,  p.  161  f.  Further  investigation  is  desirable 
on  this  point. 

"  Ibid.,  pp.  211,  227.  **  Ibid.,  pp.  211,  285. 

^  Ueber  die  Qttellen  des  Roman  de  Rou  (Leipzig,  1867).  It  appears  from  the 
account  of  the  four  sons  of  William  of  Belltoe  (line  2461  ff.)  that  Wace  used  the 
interpolations  of  Ordericus. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ROBERT  J 


269 


William  of  Jumieges  was  clearly  demonstrated  by  Korting,  so  that  he 
must  not  be  used  as  an  independent  authority  in  the  portions  on  which 
they  agree.  At  several  points,  however,  in  the  reign  of  Robert,  Wace 
offers  material  not  to  be  found  in  William,  partly  by  way  of  amplifica- 
tion, as  in  the  account  of  the  visit  of  Henry  I  and  the  campaigns  by 
land  and  sea  against  the  Bretons,  partly  in  the  form  of  new  episodes. 
These  are:  the  foundation  of  Cerisy  (ed.  Andresen,  lines  2305-2312) ; 
the  poor  knight  (2313-2338);  the  clerk  who  died  of  joy  at  the  duke's 
gift  (2339-2388);  the  smith  of  Beauvais  (2389-2430);  the  stories  of 
Arlette  and  of  the  Conqueror's  infancy  (2833-2930);  the  investiture 
of  WiUiam  by  the  king  of  France  and  the  guardianship  of  Alan  of 
Brittany  (2979-2994);  and  the  full  narrative  of  the  pilgrimage 
(2995-3252).  Something  of  the  substance  of  the  history  of  the  reign, 
as  well  as  much  of  its  color,  depends  upon  the  acceptance  or  rejection 
of  these  elements  in  Wace's  poem. 

A  professional  rhymester  writing  more  than  a  century  and  a  quarter 
after  Robert's  death  does  not  inspire  confidence  as  an  historical  au- 
thority unless  the  sources  of  his  information  can  be  definitely  traced,  a 
task  which  was  long  considered  unnecessary  and  unfruitful.  "  C'est," 
wrote  fidelestand  Du  MerU  in  1862,^  "une  question  d'un  tres-mince 
interet,  dont  la  veritable  reponse  satisferait  bien  mal  la  curiosite: 
c'etait  un  peu  tout  le  monde."  Such  vague  conclusions  are  not,  how- 
ever, in  accord  with  the  trend  of  more  recent  investigation,  especially 
since  the  publication  of  Bedier's  studies  of  the  mediaeval  epic,  and  the 
comfortable  '  tout  le  monde  '  of  earlier  belief  has  in  many  instances 
been  replaced  by  particular  individuals  or  monasteries.  Can  anything 
of  this  sort  be  accompUshed  in  the  case  of  Wace  ?  The  answer  is  easy 
if  we  accept  an  emendation  of  Gaston  Paris  in  line  3239,  where, 
speaking  of  the  duke's  chamberlain  Tosteins  who  brought  back  to 
Cerisy  the  relics  procured  at  Jerusalem,  he  says, 

De  par  sa  mere  fu  sis  aiues. 

This  does  not  make  sense,  nor  does  the  reading  of  MS.  B,  which  has 
'  mis  aues.'  If,  however,  we  accept  B  and  emend  the  first  pronoim,  we 
have 

De  par  ma  mere  fu  mis  aiues, 

"  Cf.  Korting's  analysis,  pp.  51-53- 

La  vie  et  les  ouvrages  de  Wace,  in  Eludes  sur  quelques  points  d' archeologie  et 
d'histoire  litUraire  (Paris,  1862),  p.  269. 
"  Romania,  ix.  526  ff.  dSSo). 


270 


APPENDIX  C 


which  is  perfectly  intelligible  and  makes  Tosteins  the  grandfather  of 
Wace.  If  this  be  admitted,  the  whole  narrative  of  the  pilgrimage,  as 
well  as  some  of  the  personal  episodes,  would  come  from  one  of  the 
duke's  companions  on  the  journey,  not  directly,  for  Wace  could  not 
have  known  a  grandfather  grown  to  manhood  by  1035,  but  through  the 
poet's  mother. 

In  some  instances  the  source  can  be  further  identified.  Thus  for 
the  two  stories  of  Robert's  generosity  we  now  have  the  authority  of  the 
Abbot  Isembert."  That  of  the  poor  knight  Wace  reproduces  closely, 
that  of  the  smith  of  Beauvais  he  abbreviates;  but  the  inference  that  he 
knew  them  in  this  form  is  strengthened  by  their  probable  connection 
with  Caen,  where  he  was  a  clerc  lisant.  On  the  other  hand,  the  account 
of  Robert's  magnificence  at  the  Byzantine  court  cannot  be  derived 
wholly^*  from  the  interpolation  in  WiUiam  of  Jiunieges,  which  says 
nothing  of  the  cloaks  used  by  the  Normans  as  seats  and  left  in  the 
emperor's  presence.  In  this  respect  the  Latin  text  agrees  better  with 
the  saga  of  Sigurd  Jerusalem-farer,  one  of  the  many  forms  in  which 
Gaston  Paris  has  traced  the  story  through  mediaeval  literature.^  At 
this  point  Wace  touches  the  broader  stream  of  popular  tradition. 

In  another  portion  of  his  narrative  we  find  a  definite  and  verifiable 
local  source  of  information.  It  is  noteworthy  that  in  this  part  of  his 
work  Wace  gives  prominence  to  Robert's  special  foundation,  the 
abbey  of  Saint- Vigor  at  Cerisy.  Whereas  Ordericus  and  Robert  of 
Torigni  barely  mention  its  revival  at  this  time,^"  Wace  describes  the 
privileges  granted  to  the  establishment  by  Robert,  the  sending  of  the 
relics  thither  by  the  chamberlain  Tosteins,  and  the  gifts  made  early  in 
the  Conqueror's  reign  by  Alfred  the  Giant  upon  entering  the  monas- 
tery. Here  we  can  test  his  statements  by  extant  documents.'^  The 
abbey's  jurisdiction  is  described  as  follows: 

2309  E  tel  franchise  lur  dunat, 
Cume  11  dues  en  sa  terre  ad: 
II  unt  le  murdre  e  !e  larun, 
Le  rap,  le  homicide,  le  arsun. 

"  Supra,  note  18.         "  As  Marx  assumes,  Guillaume  de  Jumieges,  p.  xxii. 

*  Sur  un  episode  d'Aimeri  de  Narhonne,  in  Romania,  ix.  515-546  (1880).  Cf. 
Paul  Riant,  Les  Scandinaves  en  Terre  Sainte,  p.  ig6  ff. 

Ordericus,  ii.  11;  Robert  of  Torigni,  ed.  Delisle,  ii.  195;  William  of  Jumieges, 
ed.  Marx,  pp.  252,  255.  Cf.  Wace,  Chronique  ascendante,  line  213. 

"  Monasticon,  vii.  1073  f.;  incomplete  in  Neusiria  Pia,  p.  431;  cf.  Delisle- 
Berger,  no.  406.  For  the  abbey's  possessions,  see  the  Inventaire  sommaire  des 
archives  de  la  Manche,  series  H;  the  index  to  Longnon,  PouiUes  de  la  province  de 


THE  REIGN  OF  ROBERT  I 


271 


These  are  not  specified  in  the  ducal  charter,  but  there  is  abundant 
evidence  that  such  were  the  crimes  regularly  included  in  the  grant  of 
ducal  consuetudines  which  is  there  made.^  Concerning  the  gifts  of 
Alfred  the  Giant  Wace  is  more  definite : 

3593  Una  vile,  Luvres  out  nun, 
Qiii  art  de  sa  garantisun, 
Od  tuz  las  apartenamenz, 
E  Taglise  de  Saint  Loranz, 
Ovec  I'eglise  da  Taisia 
Fist  cunfermer  a  Ceresie. 

Alfred's  charter  enumerates  likewise  *  totam  terrain  meam  de  Lepori- 
bus  .  .  .  etiam  totam  terram  quam  Walterus  presbiter  de  me  tenebat 
in  villa  que  dicitur  Taissei ';  and  we  know  that  these  places,  the 
barony  of  Lie\Tes  and  the  churches  of  Tessy-sur-Vire  and  Saint- 
Laurent-sur-Mer,  were  part  of  the  abbey's  domain.  Specific  detail  of 
this  sort  could  be  obtained  only  from  the  monks  of  Cerisy,  through 
whom  also  would  come  the  history  of  the  relics  brought  by  Tosteins,  in 
case  we  hesitate  to  identify  him  as  an  ancestor  of  the  poet.  Wace  had 
of  course  ample  opportunity  to  converse  with  monks  from  Cerisy  at 
Bayeux  and  at  the  court  of  Henry  II,  from  whom  they  secured  charters; 
but  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  he  visited  the  abbey  itself,  which  he 
locates  exactly  (fines  3247  f.)  between  Coutances  and  Bayeux,  three 
leagues  from  Saint-L6,  particularly  as  it  was  on  the  natural  route 
between  Caen  and  his  native  Jersey.^  As  the  special  foundation  of 
Robert  I  this  monastery  would  be  the  natural  repository  of  tradition 
with  respect  to  him,  as  Fecamp  was  for  his  father  and  grandfather,^ 
and  Cerisy  may  weU  be  the  source  of  other  elements  in  Wace's  narra- 
tive which  caimot  be  distinguished  in  the  absence  of  any  remains  of 
the  local  historiography. 

Our  confidence  in  the  general  credibility  of  Wace's  account  is 
further  strengthened  by  the  confirmation  in  other  chronicles  of  partic- 

Rouen;  and  Farcy,  Abhayes  ei  prieures  de  I'evecke  de  Bayeux,  Cerisy  (Laval,  1887), 
pp.  78  ff.,  259-263. 

^  Supra,  p.  27;  jn/ra,  Appendix  D. 

^  For  a  later  example  of  the  confirmation  of  Wace  by  local  documentary  evi- 
dence, compare  the  account  of  Grimoud  du  Plessis  (lines  4219-4242)  with  the  char- 
ter in  the  Bayeux  Livre  noir,  no.  3,  and  the  inquest  in  H.  F.,  xxiii,  699  f. 

"  See  J.  Bedier,  Richard  de  Normandie  dans  les  chansons  de  geste,  in  Romanic 
Review,  i.  113-124  (1910),  and  in  Les  legendes  epiques,  iv.  1-18,  389,  406.  For  Wace's 
own  sojourn  at  Fecamp  and  use  of  its  local  traditions,  see  lines  2246,  2994,  6781- 
6918,  and  lines  1356-1359  in  Andresen,  i.  87;  and  cf.  Gaston  Paris,  in  Romania, 
ix.  597,  610. 


272 


APPENDIX  C 


ular  statements  of  his  which  are  not  found  in  William  of  Jumieges. 
Thus  the  death  of  Robert  by  poison  is  mentioned  by  the  monk  of 
Saint- Wandrille,^^  as  well  as  by  William  of  Malmesbury,'*  and  that  of 
Count  Drogo  by  Ordericus.  Ordericus  also  relates  the  visit  of  Henry  I 
at  Easter,  the  grant  of  the  Vexin,  and  the  guardianship  of  Alan  of 
Brittany." 

There  remains  the  question  how  far  the  chroniclers  are  confirmed 
and  supplemented  by  documentary  evidence.  Any  study  of  such 
material  must  be  provisional,  until  the  early  Norman  charters  shall 
have  been  collected  and  critically  tested  monastery  by  monastery. 
Meanwhile  a  rough  list  of  such  charters  of  Robert  I  as  have  come  to  my 
notice  may  serve  a  useful  purpose.  In  the  absence  of  chronological 
data  the  list  is  arranged  by  religious  estabhshments;  grants  of  his 
reign  attested  or  confirmed  by  Robert  are  included,  but  not  charters 
of  Richard  II  in  which  he  appears  as  a  witness. 

1.  AvRANCHES  cathedral.  Grants  enumerated  in  notice  of  Bishop  John. 
E.  A.  Pigeon,  Le  diocese  d'Avranches,  ii.  667,  from  modern  copy. 

2.  Beg.  Consents  to  grant  by  Abbot  Herluin,  1034-1035.  Mabillon, 
nales  Ordinis  S.  Benedicti  (Lucca,  1739),  iv.  361;  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  i.  234. 

3.  Cerisy-la-For£t.  Foundation  charter  of  the  monastery  of  Saint- 
Vigor,  12  November  1032.  Vidimus  of  1269-1313,  in  Archives  Nationales, 
JJ.  62,  no.  96;  of  1351,  ibid.,  JJ.  80,  f.  340V;  Cartulaire  de  Normandie 
(MS.  Rouen,  1235),  ff-sSv,  84.  Neustria  Pia,  p.  431;  Monasticon,  vii.  1073, 
from  Norman  roils  of  Henry  V;  Delisle,  Cartulaire  normand,  no.  768;  Farcy, 
Abbayes  du  diocese  de  Bayeux,  i.  78. 

4.  Dijon,  Saint-£tienne.  Confirms  grants  of  his  predecessors  in  Nor- 
mandy. Subsequent  to  the  death  of  St.  William  in  103 1.  Deville,  Analyse, 
p.  33;  cf.  supra,  Chapter  I,  note  170;  Analecta  Divionensia,  ix.  175. 

5.  £vREXix,  Saint-Taurin.  Gift  mentioned  in  no.  10. 

6.  Fecamp.  Comprehensive  enumeration  of  his  gifts  to  the  abbey, 
1032-1035.  Supra,  Appendix  B,  no.  loA. 

7.  Fecamp.  Fuller  and  more  suspicious  form  of  no.  6,  with  identical 
witnesses.  Appendix  B,  no  loB. 

8.  Fecamp.  Charter  notifying  agreement  between  the  abbey  and  Hugh, 
bishop  of  Bayeux,  with  reference  to  Argences.  Appendix  B,  no.  7. 

9.  Fecamp.  Charter  concerning  the  restoration  of  Argences  to  the  abbey. 
Appendix  B,  no.  8. 

10.  Fecamp.  Charter  exchanging  Saint-Taurin  of  fivreux  for  Montivll- 
liers  as  a  dependency  of  Fecamp.  Appendix  B,  no.  9. 

11.  Jumieges.  Adds  Virville  to  his  father's  charter  of  August  1025  (  ?). 
Vidimus  of  1499  and  1533,  and  Cartulary  22,  in  Archives  of  the  Seine- 
Inferieure,  f.  7  ff.;  Vernier,  no.  12. 

"  Mabillon,  Acta,  iii.  353.  "  Gesta  Regum,  p.  211. 

"  ii.  102;  iii.  223-225.  Whether  Wace  and  Ordericus  are  entirely  independent 
is  a  matter  which  needs  investigation. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ROBERT  I 


12.  JxjMiEGES.  Subscribes  charter  of  Dreux,  count  of  Amiens,  1031-1035. 
Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  10;  Neuslria  Pia,  p.  318;  F.  Soehnee,  Catalogue 
des  actes  de  Henri  I",  no.  37;  Vernier,  no.  14. 

13.  JuMiEGES.  Attests  charter  of  Roger  of  Montgomery.  Original  in 
Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure;  copies,  MS.  Lat.  5424,  f.  184V,  MS.  Lat. 
n.  a.  1245,  f.  175.  Vernier,  no.  13;  J.  Loth,  Histoire  de  I'abbaye  de  Saint- 
Pierre  de  J  umihges,  i.  158. 

14.  Mont-Saint-Michel.  General  privilege.  Original  in  Archives  of 
the  Manche,  H.  14990  (early  copy  H.  14991).  Memoires  de  la  Societe  d' 
Agriculture  de  Bayeux,  viii.  252  (1879);  Round,  Calendar,  no.  704. 

15.  Mont-Saint-Michel.  Grant  of  one-half  of  Guernsey  and  other 
specified  lands.  Original  in  Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  14992;  vidimus  in 
Archives  Nationales,  JJ.  66,  no.  1496;  cartulary  (MS.  Avranches,  210),  f.  26. 
M.A.N.,  xii.  in;  Round,  no.  705;  Dehsle,  S.-Sauveur,  pieces,  no.  9;  G. 
Dupont,  Le  Cotentin  (Caen,  1870),  i.  463  f.;  V.  Hunger,  Histoire  de  Verson 
(Caen,  1908),  no.  5  (facsimile). 

16.  Mont-Saint-Michel.  Attests,  together  with  Archbishop  Robert 
(t  1037)  and  others,  charter  of  Edward  the  Confessor  as  king  granting  to  the 
abbey  St.  Michael's  Mount,  Cornwall.  Cartulary,  f.  32V;  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur, 
pieces,  no.  18;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  708.  Robert's  name  does  not  appear  in 
the  text  printed  in  the  Monasticon,  vii.  989,  '  ex  ipso  autographo  ',  and 
reproduced  by  Kemble,  Codex  Diplomaticus,  iv.  251.  Edward's  title  has 
generally  been  considered  to  render  this  charter  questionable  (cf.  Freeman, 
Norman  Conquest,  ii.  527  f.) ;  see,  however,  Round,  no.  706,  and  infra,  p.  275. 

17.  MoNTiviLLiEES.  Foundation  charter  of  the  nunnery,  with  detailed 
enumeration  of  possessions.  Given  at  Fecamp  13  January  1035.  Copies  in 
Bibliotheque  Nationale,  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1245,  ff.  112,  252;  Archives  of  the 
Seine-Inferieure,  G.  2068.  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  326,  from  vidimus. 

18.  Preaux.  Consents  to  foundation  of  abbey.  Gallia  Christiana,  xi. 
instr.  199. 

19.  Preaux.  Attests  confused  notice  of  donation  by  the  hermit  Peter. 
Le  Prevost,  Eure,  iii.  169,  from  cartulary  in  Archives  of  the  Eure  (H.  711). 

20.  Preaux.  Notice  of  his  gift  of  Toutainville  to  the  abbey '  illo  anno  quo 
perrexit  Robertus  comes  Jerusalem  '.  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  200;  H.  F., 
xi.  387;  Mabillon, /l«wa/ej,  iv.  361  (393);  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur,  pieces,  no.  12; 
Le  Prevost,  Eure,  iii.  300  (from  cartulary). 

21.  Rouen  cathedral.  Charter  of  restoration  issued  conjointly  with 
Archbishop  Robert.  Cartulary  (MS.  Rouen  1193),  f.  32  f.;  vidimus  in 
Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  G.  2087,  3680.  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  ii.  520;  cf. 
[Pommeraye]  Histoire  de  I'eglise  cathedrale  de  Rouen  (Rouen,  1686),  p.  568, 
where  another  form  of  this  charter  is  also  mentioned. 

22.  Rouen.  La  Trinite.  Confirms  the  foundation  of  the  abbey  and 
enumerates  its  possessions,  1030.  Cartulaire  de  I'abbaye  de  la  Sainte-Trinite, 
ed.  Deville,  no.  i;  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  9;  Neustria  Pia,  p.  412; 
Pommeraye,  Histoire  de  I'abbaye  de  Sainte-Catherine,  p.  73. 

23-26.  Rouen,  La  Trinite.  Attests  four  grants  to  the  monastery.  Cartu- 
laire, nos.  3,  s,  9,  24. 

27.  Rouen,  Saint-Amand.  Confirms  foundation.  Vidimus  of  Phihp  the 
Fair,  in  13 13,  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  and  in  Archives  Nationales, 


274 


APPENDIX  C 


JJ.  49,  no.  47;  cartulary  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  f.  5  f.  Pom- 
meraye,  Eisloire  de  Saint- Amand,  p.  76;  La  Roque,  iv.  2224  (extract); 
Monasticon,  vii.  iioo,  from  Norman  rolls  of  Henry  V.  The  relation  of  this 
charter  to  no.  22,  which  it  closely  resembles,  and  to  the  conf\ision  respecting 
the  beginnings  of  Saint-Amand,  requires  investigation. 

28.  RoxiEN,  Saint-Ouen.  Adds  his  confirmation  to  that  of  his  father  in 
charter  of  '  Enna  Christi  famula  ':  '  Et  hoc  signum  +  predictus  comes 
Rotbertus  cujn  suis  episcopis  atque  militibus,  scilicet  NigeUo,  Osbemo 
dapifero,  atque  aliis  nobilibus  manu  sua  '  (breaks  off).  Pretended  original, 
with  a  duplicate  omitting  Robert's  confirmation,  in  Archives  of  the  Seine- 
Inferieure;  copy  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  MS.  Lat.  5423,  f.  124V. 

28  a.  Rouen.  Saint-Ouen.  Charter  cited  by  William  the  Conqueror. 
MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1243,  no.  19;  cf.  Neustria  Pia,  p.  23. 

29.  Saint- Wandrille.  Grant  of  the  church  of  Arques  and  its  depen- 
dencies, 1031-1032.  Round,  Calendar,  no.  1422;  Lot,  S.-WandriUe,  no.  13 
(from  cartulary  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure). 

30.  Satnt-Wandrille.  General  confirmation,  103 2-103 5.  Lot,  no.  14, 
where  the  various  copies  and  editions  are  given. 

31.  Sells  Le  HoioiE  to  his  sister  Adeliz.  Mentioned  in  charter  of  Adeliz 
for  La  Trinite  de  Caen.  Cartulary  in  Bibhotheque  Nationale  (MS.  Lat. 
5650),  f.  17V.  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur,  pieces,  no.  34;  Round,  Calendar,  no.  421.'' 

Not  more  than  three  of  these  documents  are  originals  of  charters 
issued  by  Robert  himself,  so  that  no  diplomatic  study  is  possible.  It  is 
clear  that  there  was  no  ducal  chancery:  not  only  do  we  find  no  signature 
of  chancellor  or  chaplain,  but  the  varieties  of  style    and  substance 

'8  The  grant  of  Saint-James  to  Saint-Benoit-sur-Loire  mentioned  in  the  Con- 
queror's charter  of  1067  (Prou  and  \"idier,  Les  chartes  de  Saint-Benoit,  i.  203),  which 
was  ascribed  to  Duke  Robert  by  Stapleton  (i,  p.  xci),  should  probably  be  assigned 
to  his  uncle,  Archbbhop  Robert.  The  charter  for  Lisieux  cited  in  the  Chronique  de 
S.-Barbe  (ed.  Sauvage,  p.  26)  is  probably  a  charter  of  Richard  11  which  Robert  wit- 
nessed: M.  A.  N.,  xiii.  9. 

Thus  the  duke  calls  himself  '  Ego  Robertas  Xonnannorum  comes  '  (no.  3); 
'  ego  Robertus  gratia  Dei  dux  et  princeps  Xormannorum  '  (no.  4) ;  '  ego  Rotbertus 
filius  secundi  Richardi  nutu  Dei  Northmannorum  ducis  et  ipse  per  gratiam  Dei 
princeps  et  dux  Northmannorum  '  (no.  6) ;  '  Robertus  nutu  Dei  Northmannorum 
dux  '  (no.  8) ;  '  ego  Robertus  gratia  Dei  dux  Nonnannorum  '  (no.  9) ;  '  ego  Robertus 
comes  filius  magni  Richardi  gratia  Dei  dux  et  princeps  Normannorum '  (no.  15; 
cf.  no.  14);  '  Robertus  divina  auctoritate  Normannorum  dux  et  rector  '  (no.  17); 
'Robertus  divina  favente  clemencia  Normanorum  dux'  (no.  21);  'Robertus 
divina  ordinante  providentia  Normannorum  dux  et  rector'  (nos.  22,  27);  'ego 
Rodbertus  gratia  Dei  consul  et  dux  Normannorum '  (no.  29) ;  '  ego  Robertus 
disposicione  divina  Normannorum  princeps  '  (no.  30).  In  the  attestation  he  appears 
as  'ego  Robertus  princeps  Norhmannorum  gracia  Dei  dux'  (no.  15);  'signum  Rot- 
berti  marchisi '  (no.  22);  '  signum  Rotberti  Normannonmi  ducis '  (nos.  6, 12);  'sig- 
num Roberti  comitis  et  ducis  Normannorum  '  (no.  30).  Cf.  Nouveau  traiU  de 
diplomatique,  v.  760  f. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ROBERT  I 


^7S 


point  plainly  to  local  authorship.  As  only  the  charters  for  Cerisy 
and  Montivilliers  are  exactly  dated,  it  is  impossible  to  draw  up  an 
itinerary  or  even  to  follow  in  the  most  general  way  the  duke's  progress 
throughout  Normandy.  The  lists  of  witnesses,  however,  are  sufficiently 
full,  to  give  us  some  notion  of  his  entourage,  in  which  four  elements 
can  be  distinguished.  First  come  the  higher  clergy,  including  regularly 
the  duke's  uncle,  Archbishop  Robert,  commonly  three  or  four  bishops, 
and  less  frequently  certain  abbots;  prelates  from  beyond  Normandy 
appear  occasionally,  such  as  the  archbishop  of  Dol  (no.  6)  and  Odilo 
of  Cluny  (no.  29).  The  great  lords  of  Normandy  and  the  adjacent 
lands  come  next:  Enguerran,  count  of  Ponthieu,  Baldwin  of  Flanders, 
Gilbert  of  Brionne,  William  of  Arques,  Mauger  of  Corbeil,  Humphrey 
'  de  Vetulis,'  Galeran,*"  Rabel,  doubtless  the  commander  of  the  fleet,*' 
and  on  two  occasions  (nos.  6,  30),  in  spite  of  his  tender  years,  the 
duke's  son  WiUiam.  In  this  group  it  is  possible  also  to  trace  the  princes 
who  took  refuge  at  the  Norman  court:  King  Henry  I,  '  qui  time  tem- 
poribus  profugus  habebatur  in  supradicta  terra  '  (no.  29;  cf.  no.  12); 
and  the  ethelings  Edward  and  Alfred,  who  appear  in  no.  29  with 
'  signimi  Hetuuardi '  and  '  signum  Alureth  fratris  E.',  and  in  no.  9 
with  *  signum  Hetwardi,  signum  Helwredi,'  while  Edward  alone  is 
found  as  king  in  nos.  6  and  16  —  a  style  which  can  be  explained  only  by 
rejecting  these  charters,  at  least  in  their  present  form,  or  by  admitting 
that  he  assumed  the  royal  title  during  the  lifetime  of  Canute.  As  com- 
pared with  their  importance  in  the  succeeding  reign  the  group  of 
household  officers  is  small  and  ill-defined,  comprising  the  seneschal 
Osbern,*^  who  generally  appears  well  up  in  the  list  but  not  always  with 
this  title,  the  constable  Turold,  who  is  found  at  the  very  end  of  two 
apparent  originals  (nos.  6,  15),  and  Robert  '  pincerna '  (no.  15;  cf. 
Round,  no.  709) ;  the  chamberlains    and  chaplams    mentioned  else- 

Probably  Galeran  of  Meulan,  no.  27.  On  his  difficulties  with  Robert,  see 
Neustria  Pia,  p.  320;  Vernier,  no.  16. 

*i  Nos.  13,  30.  See  the  interpolation  of  Ordericus  in  William  of  Jumidges,  ed. 
Marx,  p.  155.    Wace  (lines  2795,  2805)  calls  him  Tavel. 
Supra,  p.  50  f. 

^  '  Procurator  principalis  domus,'  he  is  called  by  Ordericus:  William  of  Ju- 
mieges,  ed.  Marx,  p.  156.  Anfredus  likewise  appears  as  dapifer  in  no.  29.  '  Gisle- 
bertus  senescallus  '  in  Cartulaire  de  la  Trinite,  no.  5,  may  not  be  a  ducal  oflScer.  Cf. 
L.  W.  Vernon  Harcourt,  His  Grace  the  Steward,  p.  7. 

WUliam  of  Jumieges,  p.  107;  Wace,  line  3237.  '  Radulfus  camerarius  filius 
Geroldi '  is  mentioned  in  no.  20. 

Isembert,  in  William  of  Jumieges,  p.  108;  Emaldus,  in  Chapter  I,  note 
246  (full  text  in  Archaeologia,  xxvii.  26). 


276 


APPENDIX  C 


where  do  not  app>ear  among  the  witnesses.  Probably  some  of  those  who 
sign  without  title  are  also  members  of  the  household.  At  the  end  come 
the  vicomtes,  ordinarily  without  designation  of  districts,  and  attaining 
in  one  case  (no.  15)  the  number  of  seven.  In  some  instances,  as  in  that 
of  the  well  known  Neal  of  Saint-Sauveur,  vicomte  of  the  Cotentin,'*®  it  is 
plain  that  they  too  may  attest  without  title. 

Whether  Robert's  reign  was  marked  by  any  acts  of  legislation, 
either  secular  or  ecclesiastical,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  The  first  Nor- 
man provincial  council  of  which  we  have  mention  is  not  earlier  than 
1042,*^  and  the  earliest  formulation  of  ducal  custom  comes  to  us  from 
the  sons  of  the  Conqueror.''*  Nevertheless,  certain  canons  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Lillebonne  (1080)  refer  to  the  practice  of  Robert's  time  as  the 
basis  of  customary  right,''^  and  respecting  cemeteries  the  reference  is  so 
specific  as  to  incline  Tardif  to  the  opinion  that  some  actual  document 
of  the  period  is  presupposed.^"  In  this,  as  in  other  matters,  it  is  likely 
that  the  conditions  of  Robert's  reign  often  furnished  the  norm  for  that 
of  his  son. 

On  whom  see  Delisle,  S.-Sauveur,  pp.  2-4,  pieces,  nos.  i-i6. 

"  Bessin,  Concilia  Rotomagensis  Provinciae,  i.  3g.  On  the  date  of  this  council 
and  on  all  questions  concerning  early  Norman  legislation,  see  E.-J.  Tardif,  6iude  sur 
les  sources,  i.  29  f. 

**  Infra,  Appendix  D. 

**  Cc.  II,  13,  48,  in  Layettes  du  Tresor  des  Charles,  i.  25  ;  Ordericus,  ii.  3i6f[. 
"  Op.  cit.,  i.  40. 


APPENDIX  D 


THE  NORMAN  CONSUETUDINES  ET  lUSTICIE  OF 
WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROR' 

The  sources  for  the  history  of  Norman  law  before  the  conquest  of  the 
duchy  by  Philip  Augustus  are,  as  is  well  known,  exceedingly  meager. 
The  earliest  law-book,  the  first  part  of  the  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier, 
belongs  to  the  very  end  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  the  traces  of  custom 
and  legislation  preserved  in  charters  and  chronicles  are  of  the  most 
fragmentary  and  scattered  sort.^  It  is,  accordingly,  all  the  more  im- 
perative, especially  in  view  of  the  great  importance  of  Norman  law  in 
European  legal  development,  to  treasure  carefully  such  material  as  we 
have;  and  I  venture  to  think  that  a  text  of  the  year  1091,  containing  a 
brief  statement  of  the  customs  of  the  duchy  under  William  the  Con- 
queror, has  not  received  sufl&cient  attention  from  students  of  Norman, 
and  Anglo-Norman,  history  and  institutions.  The  text  in  question  was 
first  printed,  in  an  incomplete  and  sometimes  unintelligible  form,  by 
Dom  Martene  *  under  the  title  '  Normannorum  antiquae  consue- 
tudines  et  iustitiae  in  concilio  apud  Lillebonnam  anno  m.bcxx.  cele- 
brato  confirmatae,'  and  was  reproduced  by  Mansi  as  part  of  the  canons 
of  the  council.*  But  while  in  all  the  manuscripts  of  the  Consuettidines 
they  follow  immediately  the  canons  of  Lillebonne,  they  do  not  occur  in 
Ordericus  or  in  the  official  version  of  the  acts  of  the  council,  as  sealed 
by  Henry  I,^  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  contents  of  the  two  documents 
which  indicates  the  slightest  connection  between  them.  It  is  plain 
from  the  opening  sentence  that  the  Consuetudines  are  not  an  enact- 
ment of  the  Conqueror's  reign  but  the  result  of  an  inquest  made  by 

1  Revised  from  E.  H.  R.,  xxiii.  502-508  (1908). 

2  H.  Brunner,  Entslehung  der  Schwurgerichte,  p.  130  ff.;  Pollock  and  Maitland, 
i.  64  ff.;  E.-J.  Tardif,  £xude  sur  les  sources  de  V ancien  droit  normand,  i  (Rouen, 
191 1).  On  the  date  of  the  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  see  Tardif 's  edition,  pp.  Ixv- 
Ixxdi;  Viollet,  in  Histoire  litteraire,  xxxiii.  47-49. 

'  Velerum  Scriplorutn  Collectio  Nova  (Paris,  1700),  i.  226;  reprinted  in  Martene 
and  Durand,  Thesaurus  Novus  Anecdolorum  (Paris,  1717),  iv.  117;  from  a  manu- 
script of  Mont-Saint-Michel,  now  MS.  149  of  the  library  of  Avranches.  Reprinted 
in  Migne,  Patrologia,  cxlix.  1329. 

*  Concilia,  xx.  575. 

'  Ordericus,  ii.  316;  Teulet,  Layettes  du  Tresor  des  Charles,  i.  25,  no,  22. 

277 


278 


APPENDIX  D 


Robert  and  William  Rufus  after  his  death.*  As  this  inquest  was  held 
on  i8  July  at  Caen,  it  must  be  assigned  to  1091  as  the  only  year  in  the 
July  of  which  these  princes  were  in  Normandy  and  in  friendly  rela- 
tions.^ The  division  of  territory  which  they  had  recently  made  fur- 
nished a  natural  occasion  for  ascertaining  the  ducal  rights,  or  at  least 
for  a  declaration  of  such  of  them  {quia  magis  necessaria  sunt)  as  had 
been  most  persistently  violated  during  the  preceding  anarchy.* 

Over  against  the  adulterine  castles  of  recent  origin  the  inquest  de- 
clares the  law  of  the  Conqueror's  time,  which  not  only  forbade  the 
building  of  castles  and  strongholds,  but  placed  careful  restrictions  on 
the  making  of  fosses  and  paUsades  (§  4).  With  this  went  the  right,  so 
freely  used  by  the  Conqueror,  of  placing  garrisons  in  the  castles  of  his 
barons  and  the  right  of  demanding  hostages  for  their  loyalty  (§  5). 
Private  war  had  not  been  entirely  prohibited,  but  it  had  been  closely 
limited  (§§  6,  8,  14),  just  as  in  1075  William  I  had  limited  the  blood- 
feud  without  abolishing  it.^ 

Ducal  and  baronial  jurisdiction  are  carefully  distinguished,  although 
the  line  which  divides  them  is  not  clearly  drawn.  The  list  of  matters 
reserved  for  the  duke's  jurisdiction  is  shorter  than  the  enumeration  of 
pleas  of  the  sword  which  appears  a  century  later  in  the  Trts  Ancien 
Coutumier,^°  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  inquest  of  109 1 
expressly  disclaims  completeness.  Assault  in  the  duke's  court  or  on  the 
way  to  and  from  it,"  offenses  committed  in  the  host  or  within  a  week 

*  Cf.  Delisle,  B.      C,  x.  198;  Viollet,  in  Histoire  litleraire,  xxxiii.  41  f. 

'  For  the  events  of  1091  see  Freeman,  William  Rufus,  i.  273-293;  supra,  pp.  64  f., 
78.  H.  Bohmer,  Kirche  und  Staat,  p.  34,  note  2,  dates  the  inquest  17  June  1096,  mis- 
taking the  month  and  overlooking  the  fact  that  in  1096  William  Rufus  did  not  cross 
to  Normandy  until  September  (Ordericus,  iv.  16).  Liebermann,  Geselze,  i.  597,  note, 
has  109 1. 

'  On  conditions  in  Normandy  under  Robert  see  supra.  Chapter  II. 

'  '  Instituit  legem  sanctam,  scilicet  ne  aliquis  homo  aliquem  hominem  assalliret 
pro  morte  alicuius  sui  parentis,  nisi  patrem  aut  filium  interfecisset':  Duchesne, 
Historiae  Normamwrum  Scriplores,  p.  1018;  Ordericus,  v.  158;  Robert  of  Torigni, 
i.  60.  The  MS.  of  the  Annals  of  Saint-fitienne  in  the  Vatican  (MS.  Regina  703A, 
f.  S3v)  has,  apparently,  in  place  of  '  interfecisset,' '  interfectoref,'  while  one  MS.  of 
Robert  of  Torigni  has  '  interfectorem  ';  the  original  may  have  read  '  nisi  patris  aut 
filii  interfector  esset.' 

On  the  question  of  the  Conqueror's  earlier  legislation  against  disorder  see  Tardif , 
hide  sur  les  sources,  p.  31  f.;  on  the  interpretation  of  §  4,  C.  Enlart,  Manuel  d' 
archeologie  fran^aise,  ii.  418;  Haskins,  The  Normans  in  European  History,  p.  152  f. 

i»  Ed.  Tardif,  cc.  15,  16,  35,  53,  59,  67,  69,  70;  Pollock  and  Maitland,  ii.  455. 

"  So  in  the  canons  of  Lillebonne  '  assultus  in  ecclesie  itinere  '  is  punished  equally 
with  '  violatio  ecclesie  et  atrii.' 


CONSUETUDINES  ET  lUSTICIE 


279 


of  its  setting  forth  or  its  return,  offenses  against  pilgrims,  and  viola- 
tions of  the  coinage  (§§  i,  2,  12,  13)  —  these  place  the  offender  at  the 
duke's  mercy.  Probably  the  same  protection  extended  over  mer- 
chants (§  11)  and  over  the  duke's  forests  (§  7).  All  such  cases 
belong  to  the  duke,  but  franchise  courts  may  possess  jurisdiction  over 
attacks  on  houses  (hainfara),  arson,  rape,  and  unwarranted  seizure  of 
sureties  (§§  9,  10)  —  just  as  under  Edward  the  Confessor  hainfara  was 
one  of  the  pleas  which  were  ordinarily  reserved  to  the  crown,  but 
might  be  held  by  a  great  immunist  like  the  abbot  of  Westminster  or 
the  bishop  of  Winchester.'*  Arson,  rape,  and  hainfara  are  mentioned 
among  the  consuetudines  vicecomitatus  in  Vascoeuil  which  the  Con- 
queror granted  in  the  year  of  his  marriage  to  the  abbey  of  Preaux:  ^® 

Eodem  anno  quo  in  coniugium  sortitus  est  Normannorum  marchio  Willel- 
mus  nomine  Balduini  comitis  filiam  deditSancto  Petro  Pratelli  consuetudines 
quas  habebat  in  quadam  terra  que  WascoHum  vulgo  vocatur,  scilicet  hain- 
faram,  ullac,  rat,  incendium,  bernagium,  bellum.  Pro  quibus  abbas  eiusdem 
loci  Ansfridus  nomine  ei  dignam  dedit  pecuniam,  id  est  .x,  libras  denariorum, 
et  orationes  loci  Pratelli. 

Equally  interesting  is  the  system  of  penalties  for  those  in  tniseri- 
cordia  ducis.  The  authors  of  the  History  of  English  Law  have  made 

"  Merchants  had  also  the  protection  of  the  Truce  of  God  in  Normandy:  M.  G.  H., 
Constitutiones  et  Ada  Publica,  ed.  Weiland,  i.  601,  c.  7. 

1'  Even  priests  were  comprehended  in  the  forest  jurisdiction,  as  we  learn  from  the 
council  of  Lillebonne. 

"  Pollock  and  Maitland,  ii.  454  f.;  Maitland,  Domesday  Book  and  Beyond, 
p.  87  f.;  VinogradofT,  English  Society  in  the  Eleventh  Century,  pp.  111-114;  Steen- 
strup,  Normannerne,  iv.  348  £f.;  Liebermann,  Gesetze,  ii.  504-506. 

So  styled  in  the  notice  of  their  regrant  by  the  abbot  to  Thibaud,  son  of  Nor- 
man, shortly  afterwards:  'consuetudines  vicecomitatus  quas  a  comite  ut  supra- 
scriptum  est  emerat '  (cartulary  of  Preaux,  no.  439).  Compare  what  Wace  (ed. 
Andresen,  ii,  lines  2309-2312)  says  of  Robert  I's  grant  to  Cerisy,  the  text  of  which 
(Monasticon,  vii.  1073;  cf.  Appendix  C)  merely  gives  freedom  from  every  con- 
suetude: 

'  E  tel  franchise  lur  dunat, 
Cume  li  dues  en  sa  terre  ad: 
II  unt  le  murdre  e  le  larun, 
Le  rap,  le  homicide,  le  arsun.' 

Cartulary  of  Pr6aux,  no.  437;  now  in  Valin,  pieces,  no.  2.  In  1106  Robert  of 
Meulan  '  condonavit  abbatie  sue  banleviam  et  ullac  et  hainfariam  et  incendium  ' 
(ibid.,  no.  347).  Ullac  is  a  word  which  I  have  found  only  in  the  Preaux  cartulary:  in 
no.  55  the  form  is  utlach  and  uthlach;  in  Dehsle-Berger,  no.  675,  it  is  utklac.  It 
would  seem  to  be  connected  with  the  Old  Norse  utlagi,  an  outlaw,  which  appears  as 
ulage  or  hulague  in  Wace,  and  it  might  then  mean  the  harboring  of  an  outlaw 


28o 


APPENDIX  D 


clear  how,  in  the  course  of  the  twelfth  century,  the  old  system  of  b6t 
and  wite  is  replaced  by  a  new  criminal  law  which  puts  the  offender  or 
his  property  at  the  king's  mercy.^^  As  roughly  stated  by  the  Dialogtis,^^ 
the  new  system  grades  offenses  into  three  classes,  according  as  the 
penalty  is  forfeiture  of  movables,  of  lands  and  rents,  or  of  life  and 
limb.  Now  §§  1-3  and  13  of  the  Comtietvdines  exhibit  precisely  the 
same  system,  violations  of  the  duke's  peace  entailing,  according  to 
their  gravity,  the  forfeiture  of  pecunia,  terra,  or  corpus,  or  of  some  com- 
bination of  them;  and  it  is  hard  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the 
classification  of  the  Dialogus  goes  back  to  a  Norman  original.  Against 
the  view  of  a  Norman  origin  it  is  not  enough  to  urge  the  existence  of 
"  the  preappointed  bot  in  Normandy  when  we  can  no  longer  find  it  in 
England,"  for  the  principle  of  amercement  may  well  have  existed  in 
Normandy  side  by  side  with  survivals  of  the  definite  penalties  which 
were  once  found  among  all  Germanic  peoples  —  indeed  it  is  not  clear 
that  the  provision  of  the  Consmttidines  in  the  case  of  the  unforeseen 
melee  (§  3),  secundum  mensuram  forisfacti  emendavit,  does  not  imply  the 
preappointed  b6t. 

§  13  contains  the  earliest  evidence  of  the  ducal  monopoly  of  coinage 
and  the  jurisdiction  growing  out  of  it.^"  The  Bayeux  mint  is  not  other- 
wise known;  the  Rouen  mint  is  mentioned  in  a  charter  of  Richard  11,^ 
and  is  proved  by  coins  to  have  existed  in  the  time  of  William  Long- 
sword.^  The  standard  of  fineness  prescribed  in  §  13  is  confirmed  by 

"  ii.  458  f .  Cf.  the  discussion  of  misericordia  in  Liebermann,  Geselze,  ii.  583  f. 
'  Quisquis  enim  in  regiam  maiestatem  deliquisse  deprehenditur,  uno  trium 
modorum  iuxta  qualitatem  delicti  sui  regi  condempnatur,  aut  enim  In  universo 
mobili  suo  reus  iudicatur  pro  minoribus  culpis,  aut  in  omnibus  immobilibus,  fundis 
scilicet  et  redditibus,  ut  eis  exheredetur,  quod  fit  pro  maioribus  culpis,  aut  pro 
maximis  quibuscunque  vel  enormibus  delictis,  in  vitam  suam  vel  membra  '  (bk.  ii, 
c.  16,  ed.  Hughes,  Crump,  and  Johnson,  p.  149). 

"  Pollock  and  Maitland,  ii.  459. 

2"  There  are  traces  of  the  iitslicia  monete  under  Henry  I.  See  the  charter  for 
Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive,  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  157;  Pipe  Roll  31  Henry  I, 
p.  122;  and  cf.  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  c.  70. 

21  B.  £.  C,  xiii.  104,  note  5;  Bidletin  des  Anliquaires  de  Normandie,  xiv.  211,  219. 

^  '  Concedo  etiam  decimas  monete  nostrae  ex  integro.'  Charter  of  1025  (?)  for 
Fecamp,  original  in  the  Musee,  no.  2ter,  printed  in  Neustria  Pia,  p.  217;  supra, 
Appendix  B,  no.  5. 

A.  Engel  and  R.  Serrure,  Traile  de  nutnistnatique  du  moyen-dge,  ii.  380. 
'  Rannulfus  monetarius  '  witnesses  an  early  Rouen  charter  of  William  the  Conqueror 
(Pommeraye,  S.-A  mand,  p.  78) ;  his  son  Galeran  held  land  in  Caen  {Gallia  Christiana, 
xi.  instr.  60).  Radulfus  appears  with  this  title  in  a  charter  of  1061  (Archives  of  the 
Manche,  H.  14994;  Round,  no.  711),  and  this  name  is  found  on  coins  (Engel  and 


CONSUETUDINES  ET  lUSTICIE 


281 


analysis  of  extant  coins  of  the  eleventh  century.^*  Heltmrc  is  prob- 
ably to  be  interpreted  as  half  a  mark,^^  which  gives  a  mark  of  sixteen 
shilHngs.  This  word  points  to  the  Scandinavian  origin  of  the  mark, 
which  has  not  been  found  in  France  before  1082.^® 

The  text  of  the  Consuettidines  which  follows  is  based  upon  (A)  a 
manuscript  of  the  twelfth  century  preserved  at  the  Vatican  among  the 
manuscripts  of  the  Queen  of  Sweden,  no.  596,  flf.  4-5."  The  variant 
readings  are  taken  from  (B)  the  Vatican  MS.  Ottoboni  2964,  ff. 
133V-134V;  2*  (C)  MS.  Lat.  1597  B  of  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  ff. 
140-141V,  a  miscellaneous  collection  of  the  fifteenth  century;  and 
(D)  MS.  149,  f.  3,  of  the  library  of  Avranches,  which  was  used  by 
Martene  for  his  edition.^^  The  division  into  paragraphs  is  that  of  C, 
the  only  manuscript  which  makes  any  such  division. 

Hee  ^  sunt  consuetudines  et  iusticie  quas  habet  dux  Normannie  in  eadem 
provincia,  et  Guilleltnus  rex  qui  regnum  AngUe  adquisivit  maxime  et  viriliter 
eas  suo  tempore  teneri  fecit,  et  sicut  hie  scripte  sunt  filii  eius  Rohertus  et 
Guillelmus  per  episcopos  et  barones  sues  Cadomi  ^  recordari  fecerunt. 

Hec  est^  iusticia  quam  rex  Guillelmus  ^  qui  regnum  Anglie  adquisivit  habuit 
in  Normannia,  et  hie  inscripta est  sicut  Robertas'^  comes  Normannie" 
et  Guillelmus  rex  Anglie  filii  eius  et  heredes  predicti  regis  fecerunt  recordari'* 
et^'  scribi*"'  per  episcopos  et  barones  sues  Cadomi"  xv.  kal.  Augusti. 

I .  Et  hec  est  ^  iusticia"  domini  Normannie  quod  in  curia  sua  vel  eimdo  ad 

Serrure,  ii.  381).  '  Odo  monetarius  '  appears  in  a  Rouen  charter  (Carltdaire  de  la 
Trinite,  no.  60). 

Sambon  finds  44.7  per  cent  silver  in  a  Rouen  denarius  of  the  eleventh  century 
found  near  Naples  {Gazette  numismalique  franfaise,  in.  138,  note). 
"  Cf.  Du  Cange,  s.  v.;  B.  £.  C,  x.  198. 

^  Guilhiermoz,  Note  sur  les  poids  du  moyen  dge,  ibid.,  lx\Ti.  210-213.  See  however 
Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  74,  which  may  be  slightly  earher. 

"  On  this  manuscript  see  Pertz's  Archiv,  xii.  296;  Auvray  mB.  6,.  C.,xhx.  637, 
note  3;  Liebermann,  Ueher  die  Leges  Edwardi  Confessoris,  p.  59,  note  i. 

Described  by  Auvray,  /.  c.;  Tardif,  Coxitutniers  de  Normandie,  ii,  pp.  Ui-Iiv. 

^'  This  manuscript  is  of  the  thirteenth  century.  Cf .  Catalogue  des  maniiscrits  des 
departements,  x.  68.  MS.  551  (A.  373)  of  the  Ubrary  of  Rouen  formerly  contained 
'  Consuetudines  quas  habet  dux  Normannie  in  eadem  Normannia,'  but  this  portion 
has  been  missing  since  the  time  of  Montfaucon  {ibid.,  i.  130).  MS.  Rouen  2192,  f. 
51,  contains  a  modem  copy  by  Le  Brasseur,  the  source  of  which  is  not  given. 

'°  Hec,  CD ;  Hee  .  .  .  fecerunt,  om.  B.  If  not  official,  the  title  is  at  least  in  con- 
temporary language:  cf. '  iusticiis  et  consuetudinibus  '  in  canon  45  of  the  council  of 
Lillebonne. 


eadem,  D. 
^  cum,  D. 
^  W illelmus  rex,  B. 

scripta,  D. 


'1  scripte  hie,  C. 


R.,  B. 
"  Om.  B. 

"  Om.  B.  reccedari,  D. 
"  Om.  BC. 


*°  Om.  C. 

eadem,  D. 
*2  Om.  AC. 
"  Om.  B. 


282 


APPENDIX  D 


curiam  vel  redeundo  de  curia  nullus  homo  habuit*^  gardam  "  de  inimico  suo. 
Et  "  si  aliquis  inimico  suo  in  via  curie  vel  in  curia  forisfecit,*'  ita  quod  ipse 
sciret  ^  quod  ille  cui  malum  fecit  ad  curiam  iret  vel  inde  rediret,  si  probatus 
inde  fuit*^  dominus  Normannie  habuifo  pecuniam  suam"  et  corpus  eius  ad 
suam  iusticiam  faciendam  et  terram  suam  perdidit  ita  quod  nec  ipse  nec 
aliquis  de  parentibus  suis  eam  clamare  potuit.'^  Et"  si  defendere  potuit 
quod  scienter  hoc  non  fecisset,  per  pecuniam  fuit  in  misericordia  domini 
Normannie  sine  perditione  terre. 

2.  Et in  via  exercitus  et  in  exercitu  et  in  "  .viii.**  diebus  ante  motum 
determinati  exercitus  et  .viii.  diebus  post  exercitimi  si  aliquis  forisfecerit/' 
habuit  *2  inde  dominus  Normannie  eandem  iusticiam  quam  de  forisfacto  sue 
curie.''  Nec  infra  prescriptos  terminos  exercitus  alicui  licuit "  nammum 
capere,  et  si  fecit  per  pecuniam  emendavit in  misericordia  domini 
Normannie. 

3.  Et  si  in  exercitu  vel  in  curia  vel  in  via  curie  vel  exercitus  mislata  " 
evenit  que  pro  precedente  ^'  ira  facta  non  fuerit,'"  et  in  ea  vulneratus  vel 
occisus  fuerit aliquis,  ille  cuius  culpa  hoc  factiun  est  secvmdum  mensuram 
forisfacti  emendavit." 

4.  Nulli  Hcuit  in  Normannia  fossatum  facere  in  planam  terram nisi 
tale  quod  de  fundo'^  potuisset'^  terram  iactare  superius  sine  scabello,  et  ibi 
non  licuit  facere  paHcium  nisi  in  una  regula  et  illud  sine  propugnaculis 
et  alatoriis.  Et  in  rupe  vel  ^  in  insula  nuUi  licuit  ^  facere  fortitudinem, 
et  ^  nulli  licuit  ^  in  Normannia  castellum  facere,*'  et  nulli  Hcuit  ^  in  Nor- 
mannia ^  fortitudinem  castelli  sui  vetare  domino  Normannie  si  ipse 
eam  ^  in  manu  sua voluit  habere. 

5.  Et  si  dominus  Normannie  fihum  vel  fratrem  vel  nepotem  baronis  sui 
qui  non  esset  rtules  voluit  habere  obsidem  de  portanda  fide,  nullus  sibi 
contradicere  potuit. 


*•  Om.  C.      ^  gaurdam,  A;  gardiam,  C;  gardam  habebat,  B;  gardam  habuit,  D. 


*^  Et  .  .  .  siio,  om.  B. 

forisfecerit,  B. 
^*  sciret  qicod  ille,  om.  B 
"  fuerit,  D. 

hahehit,  C. 


*i  suam  pecuniam,  D. 

'2  perdet,  C. 

^  poterit,  C. 

^  Et  .  .  .  terre,  om.  B. 

"  erit,  C. 


^°  Here  C  has  octo  diebus  et  post  exercitum  octo  diebtts. 


n  -fecit,  C. 
^  habebit,  C. 
^  curie  sue,  BCD. 
"  licebit,  C. 

namnum,  C;  nam- 
mium,  B. 
«  cepit,  BD;  ceperit,  C. 
^  emendabit,  BCD. 
«8  Om.  B;  vis  illata,  C. 
"  precedenti,  BCD. 


'«  fuit,  B. 

emendabit,  ACD. 
"  liceal,  C. 

plena  terra,  B. 
^*  profunda,  B. 
'5  popotuisset,  A. 

nulli,  CD;  nullum,  B. 
"  licebit,  C. 
"  palatium,  B. 
"  ruppe,  B. 


etiam,  B. 
^  in  .viii.  diebus,  om.  C; 

in,  om.  D. 
58  et  octo,  B. 

diebus  . . .  viii.,  om.  B. 

««  et,  B. 

»  et  nidli,  B. 

^  liceat,  C. 

^  et  .  .  .  facere,  om.  BD. 
liceat,  C. 

Here  D  inserts  §  6. 
"  in  Normannia,  om. 
^  D  inserts  ei. 
8«  Om.  B. 


"  in  manu  sua,  om.  B;  manum  suam,  D. 
De//e/,  C;  w/wtV     »w«m       B.  06  _/We>n     portata  fide,  B. 


CONSUETUDINES  ET  lUSTICIE  283 

6.  Nulli  ^  licuit  in  Normannia  pro  calumnia  terre'''  domum  vel  mo- 
lendinum  ardere  vel  aliquam  vastacionem  facere  vel  predam'*  capere. 

7 .  Nulli  Ucuit    in  Normannia  in  forestis  ipsius  domini  hominem  assailire 
vel  insidias  ponere. 

8.  Nulli  licuit  inimicum  querendo  vel  nammum  ^  capiendo  vexil- 
lum  vel  loricam  portare  vel  cornu  sonare  neque  cembeUum  mittere  post 
quod  insidie  remanerent  neque  de  membris  suis  hominem  dampnare  sine 
iudicio,  nisi  in  tali  actu  vel  forisfacto  inventus  est  ^'^  pro  quo  membrum  per- 
dere  debuisset  et  ibidem  perdidisset,  et  nisi  per  indicium  curie  domini 
Normannie  de  hoc  quod  ad  eum  pertinet  vel  iudicio  curie  baronum  de  hoc 
quod  ad  barones  pertinet. 

9.  NuUi  Ucuit in  Normannia  hanfare  facere  vel  incendium  vel 
raptum  muheris  vel  nammum  capere  quin  fieret  inde  clamor  apud  eum  qui 
clamorem  inde  habere  debuit.*"' 

10.  Et  si  hec  facta  fuerunt/"'  dominus  Normannie  ^"^  habuit  inde 
quod  habere  debuit  in  illis  locis  in  quibus  habere  debuit  et  barones  inde 
habuerunt     quod  ad  eos  pertinuit  in  iUis  locis  in  quibus  habere  debuerunt. 

11.  "^  Nulli  hcuit  in  Normannia  mercatorem  disturbare  nisi  pro  suo 
debito  et  nisi  fideiussor  fuisset. 

12.  NulH  hcuit  peregrinum  disturbare  pro  aliquo  anteriori  foris- 
facto."' Et  si  aliquis  fecit,"'  de  corpore  suo  fuit  in  misericordia  domini 
Normannie. 

13.  NulH  licuit  in  Normannia  monetam  facere  extra  domos  mone- 
tarias  Rothomagi  et  Baiocarum  et  iUam  mediam  argenti  et  ad  iustum 
pensum,  scihcet  ^'^  .viii.^^"*  solidos  in  helmarc.^^^  Et  si  aliquis  alibi  fecit 
monetam  vel  ibi  fecit  monetam  falsam,  de  corpore  suo  fuit  in  miseri- 
cordia domini  Normannie.  Et  si  aliquis  extra  predictas  domos  [fecit]  facere 
monetam  vel  in  predictis  domibus  fecit  facere  falsam/^  terram  suam  et 
pecimiam  forisfecit.^'' 

^  Nulli  .  .  .  capere,  in-  predictam,  B.  in  Normannia,  B. 

serted  in  §  4,  D.  ^  assaillire,C;  assailire,         nammium,  B. 

liceat,  C.  D;  assallaire,  B.  vexillam,  C. 

Om.  C.  37  ii^gai^  Q.  lictierit,  B. 

hominem  de  membris  suis,  BC;  hominem  dampnare  de  membris  suis,  D. 
fueril,  C;  essel,  B.  Om.  B.  Normanannie,  A. 

1™  domini  .  .  .  curie,        '■"^  namnum,  C.  ""  habebit,  C. 

om.  B.  debehit,  C.  ^  debebit,  C. 

iM  liceat,  C.  fuerint,  C.  in  . . .  debuit,om.BC. 

habuerunt  .  .  .  debuerunt,  om.  BC;  In  illis  locis  in  quibus  pertinuit  habuerunt 
quod  ad  eos  habere  debuerunt,  B;  Habebunt  quod  inde  habere  debebunt  in  illis  locis 
in  quibus  debere  habebunt  et  quod  ad  quemlibet  pertinebit,  C. 

Nulli  .  .  .fuisset,  facto,  B.    ^^quis,C.      ™  monetarias  domos, CD. 

om.  D.  "3  feceril,  C.  i»  i,  B. 

"5  liceat,  C.  sit,  C.  ^  octo,  C. 

"*  mercatorem,  D.  ^^i  Uceat,  C.  marca,  B;  helinare,C 

fecerit,  C.  From  this  point  to  the  middle  of  the  following  paragraph  (iusticiis) 
the  ends  of  the  lines  are  wanting  in  B. 

^  erit,C.    ^''^  fecerit,  C.       fieri,  C.        monetam  falsam,  C.   '^'^  forisfaciet,C. 


284 


APPENDIX  D 


Hec  autem  que  superius  dicta  sunt  scripta  sunt  quia  magis  neces- 
saria  sunt.  Remanet  autem  multum  extra  hoc  script um  de  iusticia  mo- 
nete  et  reliquis  iusticiis  Normannie,  sed  propter  hoc  quod  non  scribitur 
nichil  perdunt  comes  Robertus  et  rex  Guillelmus  de  iusticia  quam 
pater  eorum  habuit  neque  barones  de  hoc  quod  habuerunt  tempore  regis 
GuiUelmi.i^ 

14.  Nulli  licuit  pro  guerra  hominem  capere  vel  redimere  nec  de  bello 
vel  conflictu  pecimiam  portare  vel  anna  vel  equum  ducere."^ 

"2  scripta  sunt,  cm.  C.  ^  Om.  B.  liceal,  C. 

1^  que,  B.  ^  W,  B.  »«  uuerra,  B. 
^  nil,  B.                           Willelmi,  B.  Et  sic  finis,  add.  C. 

perdent,  C. 


APPENDIX  E 


UNPUBLISHED  CHARTERS  OF  ROBERT  CURTHOSE^ 

1 

Shortly  after  September  1087 

Robert  confirms  to  Saint-£tienne  of  Caen  the  manor  of  Vains  as  granted 
by  his  father  in  his  last  illness,  reserving  the  toll  from  those  outside  the 
manor. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  brief  cartulary  of  Vains,  MS.  Caen  104,  f.  150; 
C,  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1406,  f.  58,  from  B. 

Supra,  Chapter  II,  no.  13.  Cf.  Deville,  Analyse,  p.  31;  and,  for  the 
toll,  the  inquest  of  11 71  in  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  345. 

In  nomine  sancte  et  individue  trinitatis  patris  at  filii  et  spiritus  sancti.  Ego 
Robertus  dux  Normannorum  et  princeps  Cenomannorum  concedo  ecclesie 
Dei  quam  W.  rex  Anglorum  pater  meus  pro  salute  anime  sue  et  mee,  matris 
mee,  fratrum  meorum,  antecessorum  et  parentum  nostrorum  in  honore  Beati 
Stephani  prothomartyris  construxit,  donum  de  manerio  de  Vain  *  quod  idem 
pater  meus  in  infirmitate  qua  defunctus  est  eidem  ecclesie  fecit,  ita  integre 
solide  libere  et  quiete  sicut  ipse  in  ea  die  qua  defunctus  est  idem  manerium 
tenebat.  Retineo  tamen  in  manu  mea  ad  censum  mei  vicecomitatus  eiusdem 
manerii  theloneum  alivum,  hoc  est  illud  theloneum  de  hominibus  qui  de 
foris  scilicet  venientes  in  ipso  manerio  aliquid  emunt  vel  vendunt,  theloneum 
vero  residens,  hoc  est  de  hominibus  in  ipso  manerio  manentibus  ceteraque 
tocius  ville  de  Vaymo,  quietum  et  liberum  relinquo  et  concedo  predicte 
ecclesie. 

Ad  hanc  autem  donationem  confirmandam  consilio  meorum  fideUum 
scriptum  hoc  fieri  precipio  et  manu  mea  firmavi  firmandamque  fratri  meo 
Henrico  predictisque  meis  fidelibus  tradidi.  Huius  et[iam]  donationis  con 
{sic)  fieret  a  patre  meo  sunt  testes  Robertus  comes  Moretonii,  Robertus 
comes  de  MeuUent,  Henricus  comes  frater  eius,  Yvo  TaUlebosc,  et  alii  plures. 

2 
1096 

Robert  attests  an  agreement  between  Gilbert,  abbot  of  Saint-£,tienne  of 
Caen,  and  Gerento,  abbot  of  Saint-Benigne  of  Dijon,  exchanging  Saint- 

1  See  the  full  list  of  Robert's  charters,  supra,  pp.  66-70,  to  which  the  references 
by  number  are  made  in  the  text.  For  convenience  the  alphabetical  order  of  the 
beneficiaries  has  been  retained  here.  Vernier's  edition  of  nos.  6  and  7  arrived  after 
they  were  in  type. 

*  Vains,  Manche,  canton  of  Avranches. 

28s 


286 


APPENDIX  E 


Eippolyte  of  '  Curtbertalt '  for  Saint-Avbert-sur-Orne  and  Saint- 
Martin  de  Longchamps. 

A,  original,  never  sealed,  in  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H.  1847. 

Supra,  Chapter  II,  no.  17.  Cf.  DeviUe,  Analyse,  pp.  26,  31;  Le- 
chaude,  M.  A.  N.,  vii.  270,  no.  8;  Hippeau,  M.  A.  N.,  xxi.  29,  523;  Le 
Prevost,  Eure,  ii.  323. 

The  date  is  fixed  by  the  presence  of  Abbot  Gerento  in  Normandy  in 
1096:  supra,  p.  75.  The  grant  of  Longchamps  to  Saint-Benigne 
under  Richard  II  is  mentioned  in  the  chronicle  of  the  abbey  {Analecta 
Dimonensia,  ix.  175),  which  says  nothing  of  this  exchange  and  gives  no 
means  of  identifying  Curtbertalt  among  the  abbey's  possessions. 

Notum  sit  omnibus  futuris  et  presentibus  quod  domnus  Gislebertus  abbas 
Cadomensis  et  domnus  lerento  Divionensis  fecenmt  inter  se  commuta- 
tiones  quasdam  de  rebus  ad  utrasque  §cclesias  pertinentibus.  Cadomensis 
enim  gcclesia  sita  in  Normannia  habebat  in  Burgundia  gcclesiam  Sancti 
Ypoliti  de  Curtbertalt  cum  appenditiis  datis  et  adquisitis,  quam  contulit 
Sancto  Stephano  Cadomensi  Roclenus  episcopus  CabUonensis.  Similiter 
Divionensis  sita  in  Burgundia  habebat  in  Normannia  §cclesiam  Sancti 
Alberti  cum  sibi  pertinentibus  et  gcclesiam  de  Longo  Campo  ^  iuxta  silvam 
qug  dicitur  Leons  cum  terris  et  decimis.  Quia  ergo  res  utraque  in  longinquo 
posita  erat  et  longinquitas  itineris  non  sinebat  tantumdem  commodi  prove- 
nire  quantum  faceret  si  esset  in  vicLnio  §cclesi§,  commimi  decreverunt  consilio 
ut  gcclesia  Cadomensis  acciperet  gcclesiam  Sancti  Alberti  cum  appenditiis  et 
§cclesiam  de  Longo  Campo  cum  terris  et  decimis,  quod  erat  iuris  §cclesi§ 
Divionensis,  et  §cclesia  Divionensis  haberet  gcclesiam  Sancti  Ypoliti  ciun 
omnibus  iUis  qu§  monachi  Sancti  Stephani  inibi  habitantes  videbantur  pos- 
sidere.  Hgc  itaque  mutationis  conventio  facta  est  communi  consilio  communi 
decreto  et  ut  in  posterum  servaretur  stabUitum  est  cartarum  antiquanmi 
commutatione  et  huius  nova  conscriptione  et  abbatimi  utronimque  et  frat- 
rum  utriusque  §cclesi§  subscriptione. 
Signmn  Gisleberti  abbatis  Cadomensis  +  Signum  Rodul&  + 
Signum  lerentonis  abbatis  Divionensis  +  Signmn  Humberti  monachi  +  Sig- 
mim  Hugonis  capellani  +  Signum  Roberti  monachi  + 
+Signum  Roberti  comitis  Normannorum  filii  Willelmi  regis  Anglorum. 

3 

1101-1105 

Robert  grants  to  Saint-£tienne  of  Caen  a  Sunday  market  and  an  anntial 
fair  at  Cheux. 

A,  original,  42  x  19  centimeters  with  projecting  tag  of  14  centimeters, 
in  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H.  1832.    Lechaude,  copied  by  Round, 

1  Saint-Aubert-sur-Ome,  Ome,  canton  of  Putanges;  Saint-Martin  de  Long- 
champs, Eure,  canton  of  fitrepagny. 


CHARTERS  OF  ROBERT  CURTHOSE  287 


says,  "  Le  sceau  de  cette  charte,  scellee  en  queue,  est  brise  ";  but 
nothing  now  remains  of  it. 

Supra,  Chapter  II,  no.  18;  Lechaude,  M.A.N.,  vii.  271,  no.  9; 
Round,  no.  451;  cf.  Deville,  Analyse,  p.  16,  where  the  text  gives  the 
names  of  the  bishops  of  Bayeux  and  Coutances,  Thorold  and  Ralph; 
Hippeau,  M.  A .  N.,  xxi.  495,  who  says  the  charter  was  given  at  Saint- 
Pierre-sur-Dive  (!). 

IN  NOMINE  sanctg  et  individug  trinitatis  patris  et  filii  at  spiritus  sancti. 
Ego  Robertus  dux  Normannorum  concedo  gcclesig  Dei  quam  Willelmus  rex 
Anglorum  pater  meus  pro  salute  animg  sug  et  meg,  matris  meg,  fratrum 
meonmi,  antecessorxun  et  parentum  nostrormn  in  honore  Beati  Stephani 
Cadomi  construxit,  habere  mercatum  ad  diem  dominicam  in  manerio  de 
Ceus'  hereditario  et  perpetuo  iure  possidendum  et  unam  feriam  in  anno  ad 
ilium  terminum  quem  abbas  et  monachi  eiusdem  gcclesig  elegerint.  Quod 
siquis  hanc  donationem,  scilicet  hoc  mercatum  et  banc  feriam  qug  ego  pro 
salute  animg  meg  et  pro  salute  animg  patris  mei  et  matris  meg,  fratrum. 
meorum,  antecessorum  et  parentum  nostrorum  gcclesig  Sancti  Stephani  de 
Cadomo  donavi,  eidem  gcclesig  auferre  aliquo  modo  temptaverit,  concedo 
ego  corde  et  ore  meo  et  manu  mea  confirmo  ut  ex  auctoritate  Dei  patris  omni- 
potentis  et  filii  et  spiritus  sancti  sit  excommunicatus  et  a  regno  Dei  in  per- 
petuiun  exclusus. 

Signum  Roberti  comitis  Normannig+  Signum  Eustachii  de  Bretulio  + 
Signum  WiUelmi  Rothomagensis  archiepiscopi  +  Signum  Rannulfi  episcopi 
Duhelmensis  +  Signum  Willelmi  camerarii  +  Signum  episcopi  Baiocensis  + 
Signum  WiUelmi  comitis  de  Warenna+  Signum  Roberti  de  Monteforti  + 
Signum  Gisleberti  de  Aquila  +  Signum  Rainaldi  de  Aurea  valle  +  Signum 
Willelmi  de  Ferreriis  +  Signum  Rodulfi  Taisson  +  Signum  episcopi 
Constantiensis  +  Signum  Roberti  Marmion4-  Signum  Roberti  de  Gren- 
tonis  maisniIio+   Signum  Roberti  Doisnel+ 

4 

1088-1091 

(a)  7  July  1088,  Robert,  when  about  to  cross  to  England,  restores  to 
Fecamp  and  frees  from  all  secular  dues  the  land  of  William  of  Bee,  of 
Hunspath,  and  of  Hunloph,  possessions  at  Ignauville,  Bures,  and 
Bouteilles,  and  land  at  Fecamp  which  his  father  had  taken  from  the 
abbey. 

(b)  Thereafter  Robert  grants  to  the  abbey  a  fair  at  Fecamp  each  year  as 
long  as  the  catch  of  herrings  lasts,  as  well  as  a  meadow  for  the  monks' 
dairy. 

•  Cheux,  Calvados,  canton  of  Tilly-sur-SeuUes. 


288 


APPENDIX  E 


(c)  1089-iogi,  Robert,  having  defeated  Robert  of  Mortain,  son  of 
William  of  Bee,  and  given  his  land  to  Gohier,  again  restores  it  to  Fecamp 
and  invests  the  abbot  per  lignum. 

A,  originals,  tied  together  and  retaining  portion  of  attached  seal,  in 
Musee  de  la  Benedictine,  no.  6  (fragment  of  b  separately  preserved  as 
no.  58).  As  they  existed  in  1764  they  are  described  by  Dom  Lenoir  as 
follows:  "  Cette  charte  est  en  quelque  fa^on  composee  de  trois  parties. 
...  La  premiere  et  la  seconde  sont  sur  une  feuUle  de  parchemin  de  12 
pouces  de  haut  et  13  de  large,  et  la  3«  est  sur  une  autre  feuille  de  par- 
chemin qui  a  13  pouces  de  haut  et  sept  et  demi  de  large,  ce  qui  forme 
comme  deux  chartes  couchees  I'une  sur  1'  autre  et  jointes  ensemble  par 
une  laniere  d'lm  cuir  blanc  fort  epais  et  d'un  pouce  de  large  a  la- 
quelle  est  attache  par  derriere  la  grande  charte  im  sceau  de  deux 
pouces  et  demi  de  diametre.  Ce  sceau  est  d'lme  espece  de  pate  en 
mastic  d'un  gris  blanc  qui  s'emie  tres  facUement.  II  est  si  fort  endom- 
mage  qu'U  est  impossible  d'y  rien  distinguer."  B,  copy  from  A,  by 
Lenoir,  Collection  Moreau,  cccxli,  f.  21;  C,  copies  of  a  and  c  in  the 
cartulary,  MS.  Rouen  1207,  f.  14,  no.  40,  with  several  of  the  wit- 
nesses omitted;  D,  copy  of  C,  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  2412,  no.  40. 

Supra,  Chapter  II,  nos.  20-22.  a  and  c  are  analyzed  from  C  by 
Roimd,  no.  117,  and  Davis,  no.  297;  cf.  DuCange,  imder  gravaria. 
Extract  from  6  in  S.  B.  de  la  M.  Noel,  Eistoire  des  piches  (Paris,  1815), 
p.  379,  from  Chronicon  Archimonasterii  Fiscampnmsis ,  p.  356. 

b  and  c  are  anterior  to  the  grant  of  Fecamp  to  Wilham  Rufus  in 
1091;  c  is  posterior  to  the  accession  of  Abbot  Ralph  of  Seez  in  1089. 

(c)  [In  nomine  sancte  et  individue  trinitatis.  Anno  ab  incamatione 
Domini  millesimo]  LXXX\1II  mense  lulio  septima  die  mensis  feria  vi.  [ego 
Robertas]  Dei  gratia  [dux  et  princeps  Normannorum  pro  salute]  anim§  me§ 
et  patris  mei  W.  regis  Anglorum  matrisque  me§  Mathildis  regin§  [et  alionun 
predecessonmi  meorum  reddo  et]  concede  ecclesig  Sancte  Trinitatis  Fis- 
canni  et  abbati  Willelmo  Dei  providentia  [eiusdem  ecclesig  preordinato  pas- 
tori  terras  illas  qu§]  antea  de  casamento  prefatg  §cclesi§  subtract^  f uerant : 
scilicet  totam  terram  [Willelmi  de  Becco  quam  tenebat  de  me,  simili]ter 
terram  Hunspathi  et  terram  Hunloph  de  Mamolins  et  totam  terram  de 
Hisnelvilla  ^  [et  quicquid  ad  eam  pertinet  decimamque  molen]dinorvmi  de 
Buris  et  duos  burgenses  cum  duabus  salinis  in  villa  qu§  dicitur  [Butellias  ter- 
ramque  burgensium  Fiscanni  quam]  pater  meus  ira  commotus  ante  obitus  sui 
diem  subtraxerat  ab  eadem  §cclesia.  Has  autem  [terras  reddo  et  concedo 
quietas  de  gravaria]  et  ab  omni  laicali  consuetudine  consilio  et  nutu  Heinrici 
fratris  mei  aliorumque  [obtimatimi  meonmi  quorum  subscriptione]  presens 
carta  roboratur. 

1  Ignau\'ille,  canton  of  Fecamp;  Bures,  canton  of  Londinieres;  Bouteilles, 
canton  of  Offranville,  all  in  Seine-Inferieure. 


CHARTERS  OF  ROBERT  CURTHOSE  289 


[Si+gnum  Rotberti  comitis  Signum+  Gisleberti  episcopi  Ebroicensis] 
Si+gnum  Henrici  comitis    +Signum  [Willelmi  monachi  de  Archis]. 

(6)  [Ego  qui  supra  Rotbertus  Dei  gratia  dux  et  princjeps  Normannorum 
[concede]  Sanctg  Trinitati  et  §cclesi§  Fiscannensi  in  ipso  loco  Fiscanni  [apud 
gcclesiam  Sancti  Stephani  nundinam  unam  qu§  vulgo]  feria  dicitur  omni  anno 
quandiu  captura  haringorum  duraverit.  Et  ut  [h§c  mea  concessio  firma 
maneat  signi  mei  auctoritajte  firmavi  et  fidelium  meorum  quorum  inferius 
nomina  annotata  stmt  [attestatione  roboravi.  Hi  sunt]  Helias  de  Sancto 
Sydonio,  Bernardus  de  Brus,  Willelmus  +filius  Girardi,  et  Willelmus  Grenet. 
Ex  parte  Sanct§  [Trinitatis:  Willelmus  abbas,  lohaimes  ceUerarius], 
WLUelmus  Malus  conductus,  et  Ingelrannus.  Concede  etiam  quoddam 
pratum  quod  Grandis  campus  vocatur  ad  vacariam  unam  faciendam  ad 
opus  monachorum. 

(c)  Post  h§c  omnia  consurrexit  adversimi  me  et  adversum  abbatem 
Fiscanni  Rotbertus  de  Moritania  filius  Willelmi  de  Becco  et  in  ipsa  terra 
quam  de  Sancta  Trinitate  et  Fiscannensi  abbate  tenebat  castrum  firmavit  et 
servitia  qu§  terra debebatcontratenuit.  At  egoDeo  auxiliante  pariter  et  fide- 
libus  meis  annitentibus  non  solum  eum  conquisivi  verum  et  castrum  ipsum 
destruxi  simul  et  incendi  et  terram  illam  Gohero  dedi.  Quod  abbas  de  cuius 
feodo  terra  erat  audiens  me  inde  requisivit,  dicens  quod  terra  ilia  de  dominio 
sancti  antiquitus  fuerit  et  quod  ego  eam  quando  in  Angliam  transire  debui 
cum  aliis  terris  ecclesig  reddiderim.  Hoc  ego  verum  esse  cognoscens  simul 
et  volens  ut  suum  sancto  maneret,  Fiscannum  veni  et  terram  illam  cum  aliis 
terris  ac  rebus  qug  in  alia  carta  annotate  stmt  Sanctg  Trinitati  reddidi  et 
dedi  et  inde  donationem  hoc  ligniun  in  manus  abbatis  misi  et  utramque 
cartam  sigillo  meo  auctorizavi,  et  hoc  ideo  feci  nequis  de  cetero  existat  qui 
dicere  possit  quod  terra  ista  de  dominio  sancti  non  fuerit  et  quod  ego  eam 
§cdesig  non  reddiderim  et  donaverim. 

Signum  Rotberti -j-comitis  Signum  Radulfi  +  abbatis  Sagii. 
Ad  hoc  barones  mei  testes  fuerunt  Goherus,  Rotbertus  de  Donestanvilla, 
Radulfus  de  Grainvilla,  Gislebertus  filius  Raineri,  Willelmus  filius  Girardi, 
Willelmus  Grenet,  Rotbertus  filius  Turstini,  et  Gislebertus  Belet.  Ex  parte 
Sanctg  Trinitatis :  Willelmus  abbas,  Willelmus  filius  Teoderici,  Rogerius  de 
Scilletot,  Ricardus  Harela,  lohannis  cellerarius,  Willelmus  Malus  conductus, 
Hugo  de  Ichelunt,  Ancherus  de  Nevilla,  Ansfredus  Bordet,  Ingelrannus  et 
Hugo  Gohim. 

5 

1087-1091 

Robert  grants  to  the  abbey  of  Fecamp  the  land  of  Hugh  Mursard  at 
Fecamp. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  in  cartulary,  MS.  Rouen  1207,  no.  35, 
omitting  the  witnesses;  C,  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  2412,  no.  35,  from  B. 

Supra,  Chapter  II,  no.  23.  Probably  anterior  to  the  grant  of  Fecamp 
to  William  Rufus  in  1091. 


290 


APPENDIX  E 


Ego  Robertus  comes  Normannie  pro  salute  anime  mee  et  parentum 
meorum  do  atque  concedo  Sancte  Trinitati  et  domno  Willelmo  abbati  tercio 
et  monachis  in  Fiscanno  Deo  servientibus  terram  Hugonis  IMursardi  que  est 
in  eodem  Fiscanno  cum  domibus  et  edificiis  que  in  ea  sunt,  ita  liberam  et 
quietam  et  sine  aliqua  consuetudine  sicut  idem  Hugo  ipsam  terram  tenuit,  ut 
eam  in  etemum  iure  hereditario  possideat. 

6 

30  March  1088 

Robert  attests  a  charter  of  Ralph  Fitz  Ansere  ^  granting  to  Jumieges  the 
allod  of  Beaunay  with  its  appurtenances  and  tlie  tithe  of  '  Anslevilla.' 

A,  original  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure, Jumieges;  the 
entries  respecting  the  execution  of  the  transaction  were  made  in  the 
spaces  left  vacant  by  the  signatures  and  list  of  witnesses.  B,  copy  of  the 
late  twelfth  century,  ibid. ;  C,  modern  copy  by  A.  Deville,  in  MS.  Lat. 
n.  a.  1243,  f.  185,  no.  136,  where  the  date  is  wrongly  given  as  1087. 

Supra,  Chapter  II,  no.  24;  Vernier,  no.  37;  cf.  Histoire  de  S. -Pierre 
de  Jumieges,  ed.  J.  Loth,  i.  218. 

IN  NOMINE  SANCTE  ET  INDIVIDU5  TRINITATIS.    ANNO  IPSO  QUO  GLORIOSIS- 

SMUS  ATQtJE  REVERENTissiML'sll  Deoque  amabilis  Guilelmus  rex  Anglorum 
comesque  Nortmanni§  de  ista  vita  nequam  assumptus  est  et  ut  credimus 
celestem  patriam  consecutus  est,  iii.  kal.  Aprilis,  ego  Radulfus  filius  Anseredi 
stultum  et  vanimi  prospiciens  et  ad  utilitatem  meam  minus  proficiens  quod 
egomet  adhuc  in  ista  vita  subsistens  et  potestatem  mei  habens  ut  aliis 
precipiam  post  mortem  meam  dare  quod  vivens  melius  et  utilius  pro  me  pos- 
sima  tribuere,  dedimus  ego  et  uxor  mea  Sanct?  Mari§  et  Sancto  Petro  Gime- 
giensis  monachisque  ibi  servientibus  alodiiun  quod  iure  hereditario  in 
villa  qug  vocatur  Belnaicus  ^  habebam  omne  sicuti  trans  ripam  citraque 
ripam  fluminis  illius  villg  contra  Reinaldum  filium  Rainerii  et  Bernardum 
partior,  quod  alodium  uxori  meg  in  dote  dedi  eam  accipiens.  Dedi  etiam 
decimam  AnslevOlg  ^  pro  anima  mea  uxorisque  meg  et  pro  animabus  domi- 
norum  meorum  ad  quos  h§  res  pertinebant,  concedente  et  Hbenti  animo 
donante  domino  meo  Radulfo  filio  Rogeri  ISIortemaris  ad  quem  h§  res  perti- 
nebant omne  quod  in  his  rebus  habebat,  accipiente  ipso  die  propter  istam 
donationem  fraternitatem  atque  societatem  illius  loci  et  quindecim  libras 
Rotomagensium  recipiente  ab  ipsis  monachis  iUius  loci;  et  hoc  quod  ad  istud 
alodium  pertinet  quod  adiacet  in  Ulfranvilla  "  et  in  Bemivoldi  villa;  *  et  hoc 

1  On  whom  see  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  43  and  note. 

*  Beaunay,  Seine-Inferieure,  canton  of  Totes. 

'  Perhaps  Anneville-sur-Seine:  Vernier,  i,  p.  cxxxiv. 

*  OffranviUe,  Seine-Inferieure,  chef-lieu  de  canton. 

'  Bemouville,  Seine-Inferieure,  canton  of  OffranviUe. 


CHARTERS  OF  ROBERT  CURTHOSE  2gi 


quod  in  duobus  molendinis  illius  vill§  scilicet  Belnaici  habebam  quod  ad  istud 
alodium  non  pertinebat  concedimus  ut  perpetualiter  §cclesia  Gemmeticensis 
possideat,  scilicet  in  terns  et  in  sUvis  et  in  aquis  etiam  et  in  gcclesia  et  in 
vineis  post  mortem  Radulfi  uxorisque  eius  in  dominio;  et  qui  de  dominio 
abstulerit  anathema  sit. 

Signum  Radulfi  filii  +  Rogeri  Morte  maris  Signum  Mabilig  +  uxoris  eius 
Signum  Radulfi  filii  Anseredi+  Signum  uxoris  eius+  Signum  Rogeri  Sancti 
Laurentii  mUitis  Radulfi  iilii  Rogeri  +  Signum  Gisleberti  Warenng  +  Signum 
Ricardi  filii  Richerii  de  Aquila+  Signum  Vuidonis  Carcois  de  Arenis  + 
Signum  Vualteri  de  Wesneval  +  Signum  Hugonis  +  Signum  Bemardi  Bell- 
naci+  WiUelmi  archiepiscopi  Rotomagensis  + 

Signum  Rotberti  comitis  Normannig  +  Signum  Hen  +rici  comitis  f ratris 
eius    Signimi  Vmllelmi  comitis  Ebroicensis+ 

Isti  sunt  testes  ex  parte  Rodulfi  filii  Anseredi:  Normannus  Peignardus, 
Rotbertus  Ivi  Maisnerii,  Turstenus  filius  Helewise,  Petrus  armiger  eiusdem 
Radulfi.  Ex  parte  monachorum:  Rotbertus  filius  Dut,  Salomon  de  Chare- 
celvUla,  Radulfus  marescaUus,  Herveus  filius  Ricardi  Oseii,  Durandus  cel- 
lararius,  Gislebertus  coquulus,  Radulfus  vastans  granum,  Herbertus  Maloei, 
lohannes  Grossus,  Rotbertus  presbiter,  et  alii  multi. 

Signum  Engelrani  filio  (sic)  HUberti  +  Vuilelmi  cubicularii  +  Signiun 
Ricardi  Bustelli+  Signum  Engelranni  capeUani+  Signum  lohannis  niilitis+ 
Signum  Constantini  militis  +  Benedicti  archidiaconi  +  Fulberti  archidia- 
coni+  Ursonis  archidiaconi + 

Et  Guarinus  telonarius  eiusdem  Radulfi  recepit  easdem  quindecim  Ubras 
Rotomagensium  iussu  eiusdem  Radulfi  in  villa  que  dicitur  Sancti  Victoris  *  et 
Fulco  mercator  numerax-it.  Petrus  Bassum  viU§  famulus  Radulfi  Morte- 
maris  saisivit  monachos  Germneticenses  de  eodem  alodio  iussu  eiusdem 
Radulfi  videntibus  et  audientibus  hominibus  illius  villg  vidente  etiam  et 
audiente  Hoello  homine  eiusdem  gcclesig  Sancti  Petri  Gemmeticensis. 
Rogerius  prior  eiusdem  loci  et  Rotbertus  filius  Dodonis  Rodulfusque  Montis 
Durclari  cum  eo  receperunt  istam  saisitionem  et  inde  habuenmt  decern  et 
septem  denarios. 

7 

1 09 1 -1 095,  at  Lisieux 

Robert  confirms  a  charter  of  Ralph  Fitz  Ansere  granting  to  Jumieges 
half  of  Etables  and  the  custom  of  its  wood,  and  invests  the  monastery 
therewith. 

A,  original  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieuxe,  the  charter  proper  (a) 
being  accompanied  by  a  long  and  narrow  strip  of  parchment  con- 
taining {b);  modem  copies  in  MSS.  Lat.  5424,  p.  38,  and  n.  a.  1245, 
f.  189. 

'  Saint- Victor-l'Abbaye,  Seine-Inf^rieure,  canton  of  T6tes. 


292 


APPENDIX  E 


Supra,  Chapter  II,  no.  25;  Vernier,  no.  38.  The  date  is  fixed  by 
the  accession  of  Bishop  Serlo  in  1091  and  the  death  of  Abbot  Guntard 
in  1095;  Roland  of  Dol  received  the  pallium  in  1093. 

(o)  IN  NOMINE  SANCTE  ET  INDIVTE  {sic)  TRINITATIS  PATRIS  ET  Flin  ET 

SPnuTUS  SANCTi.l  I  Ego  Rodulfus  filius  Anseredi  et  uxor  mea  Girberga  medie- 
tatem  villf  de  Stablis '  tarn  in  agris  quam  in  aquis  et  unum  molendinum 
providentes  saluti  nostrarum  animarum  Sanctg  Mariae  Gemmetici  pari  con- 
sensu donamus.  Denique  omnem  consuetudinem  quam  in  silva  habemus 
videlicet  pasturam  nostris  animalibus  et  ligna  nobis  nostrisque  famulis  ad 
calefaciendum  necessaria  prefat§  §cclesi§  similiter  concedimus.  Hanc  autem 
donationem  ut  inposterum  rata  foret  Rotbertus  dux  Northmannorum  in- 
presentiarum  baronum  suorum  Luxovii  confirmavit.  Testes  denique  huius 
donationis  hi  sunt:  Signum+  Roberti  comitis  S.  Willelmi+  archiepiscopi 
S.  Gisleberti+  episoopi  predictg  urbis  S.  Odonis4-  episcopi  Baioc[ensis]  S. 
Gisleberti+  episcopi  Ebroic[ensis]  S.  Serlonis+  episcopi  Sagii  S.  Rodulfi 
Anseredi+  S.  Girberge  uxoris  eius  S.  Roberti  comitis  Mellent  S.  Ingel- 
ranni-1-  S.  Rodulfi  Toenei  S.  Rodulfi  Mortui  Maris  S.  Walteri  Broc+  S. 
Roberti  fill  Ansch[etiUi]+  S.  Rol-f-  landi  episcopi  de  Dol  WiUelmi  de  Bre- 
t[olio]-l-  S.  Ricar+  di  archidiaconi  S.  Walteri  +  S.  Ful+  berti  archidia- 
coni  S.  Osbemi+  abbatis'  -\ — I — h 

(b)  DONATIONEM  DE  STABLIS  ROBERTUS  DUX  Northmannonun  per  hoc 
LIGNUM  misit  ad  Sanctam  mariam  gemmetici.  Testes  autem  huius  rei  simt: 
Engelrannus  filius  Ilberti,  Raulfus  de  Mortuo  Mari,  Vualterus  de  Quercu, 
Robertus  filius  Anschetilli,  Vualterius  Broc.  Hgc  denique  facta  sunt  apud 
Lexovium  per  eiusdem  loci  abbatem  Guntardum. 

1  fitables,  Seine-Inferieure,  canton  of  Longueville. 
*  Of  Bernai. 


APPENDIX  F 


UNPUBLISHED  CHARTERS  OF  HENRY  I 

With  two  exceptions,  the  following  documents  have  not  been  indi- 
cated or  analyzed  by  others.  It  was  planned  to  print  a  fuUer  selection 
from  Henry  I's  unpublished  charters,  but  the  difficulties  of  copying  and 
collation  under  present  conditions  have  led  to  the  omission  of  many 
docmnents  of  which  pubUshed  analyses  are  available.  Other  charters 
and  writs  of  Henry  are  printed  above  in  the  text  and  notes  of  Chapter 
III  and  on  p.  223  of  Chapter  VI. 

1 

1106-1107,  at  Rouen 

Charter  of  William,  archbishop  of  Rouen,  confirming,  with  Henry's 
assent,  the  church  of  Notre-Dame  at  Saint-Sever  to  Bee  as  the  abbot  and 
monks  proved  their  right  before  the  bishops  and  barons  of  Normandy. 

A,  original,  formerly  sealed  sur  double  queue  and  now  much  damaged 
by  gallstones,  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  fonds  Bonne-Nou- 
veUe;  B,  modern  copy  in  MS.  Lat.  13905,  f.  i8v,  from  which  the 
illegible  portions  have  been  supplied;  C,  modern  copy  in  MS.  Lat. 
10055,  f.  82,  '  ex  chartulario  Beccensi.'  Cf.  Poree,  Bee,  i.  396,  note  2. 

The  date  is  fixed  by  the  mention  of  Thorold,  bishop  of  Bayeux,  who 
is  last  found  attesting  in  a  charter  of  7  November  1 106  (Gallia  Chris- 
/zawa, xi.  instr.  127),  and  whose  successor  came  in  in  1107.  OnThorold's 
biography  see  W.  Tavernier,  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  franzdsische  Sprache 
und  Litteratur,  xxxvi  flf. 

Ego  Willehnus  Dei  gratia  Rotomagensis  archiepiscopus  concedo  et  con- 
firmo  ut  §[cclesia  Sanct§  Marig  Becci  lure  hereditario]  possideat  ecclesiam 
Sanctg  Marig  de  Ermentrudisvilla  ^  sicut  Willelmus  abbas  eiusdem  loci  et 
monachi  deraciocinati  sunt  cam  in  capitulo  [Sanctg  Marjig  Rotomagensis 
presente  me  et  episcopis  et  baronibus  Normannie,  concedente  domino  nostro 
Henrico  rege  Anglorum  et  annuentibus  supradictis  episcopis  et  baronibus, 
Turoldo  videlicet  Baiocensi  episcopo  et  Turgiso  Abrincensi  et  Roberto  de 
Belismo  et  Roberto  comite  de  Mellent  et  Eustachio  Bononiensi  et  Henrico 
comite  Augensi  et  archidiaconis  nostris,  Fulberto  videlicet.  Benedicto, 
[Ricardo,  Ursello,  et  quam  plujribus  aliis  clericis  [et  laicis]. 

*  fimendreville,  now  Saint-Sever,  a  suburb  of  Rouen. 

20J 


294 


APPENDIX  F 


2 

After  7  October  iii8,  at  Arganchy 

Notification  by  Henry  that,  with  the  advice  of  the  archbishops  of  Canter- 
bury and  Rouen  and  bishops  and  abbots,  he  has  decided  the  controversy 
between  Savigny  and  Saint-£iienne  of  Caen  concerning  Mortain. 

A,  original,  with  incisions  for  double  queue,  in  the  Ubrary  of  Rouen, 
MS.  3122,  no.  2;  B,  cartulary  of  Savigny,  in  Archives  of  the  Manche, 
f.  6,  no.  5.  Printed  in  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  iii,  where  a  Hne  of 
the  text  and  most  of  the  witnesses  are  omitted;  translated  in  C. 
Auvry,  Histoire  de  la  congregation  de  Savigny,  i.  290-292.  Cf.  Deville, 
Analyse,  p.  47.  The  date  is  fixed  by  the  council  of  Rouen,  7  October 
1118  (Ordericus,  iv.  329;  cf.  Roimd,  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  p.  423, 
note). 

Ego  Henricus  Dei  gratia  rex  Anglorum  et  dux  Normannorum,  cum 
archiepiscopis  Radulfo  Cantuariensi  et  Gaufrido  Rotomagensi  et  episcopis 
Ricardo  Baiocensi,  Turgiso  Abrincatensi,  Rogerio  Constantiensi,  VVillelmo 
Exoniensi,  Ildeberto  Cenomanensi,  cum  abbatibus  etiam  et  aliis  religiosis 
viris  compluribus  qui  nobiscum  huic  diffinitioni  presentes  interfuerunt,  con- 
sulentes  et  presentium  memori§  et  futurorum  scientig,  omnibus  catholicg 
pacis  et  unitatis  cultoribus  nostrarum  beneficio  litterarum  manifestare 
decrevimus  qualiter  per  Dei  misericordiam  et  nostram  instantiam  inter 
Eudonem  Cadumensium  fratrum  abbatem  et  Vitalem  Saviniensis  monasterii 
fundatorem  super  Moritoniensi  elemosina  quam  eidem  fratri  Vitali  ad 
honorem  Sanct§  Trinitatis  pro  amore  Dei  Willelmus  comes  contulerat,  pacta 
sit  et  celebrata  concordia  ...  [as  in  Gallia  Christiana] 

Testes  enim  ex  utraque  parte  subscribi  precepimus  Stephanum  Mori- 
toniensem  comitem,  Ricardum  comitem,  Rotbertum  filium  regis,  Hame- 
linum  Meduanensem,  Willelmum  de  Albineio  et  Nigellum  et  Hunfridum  de 
Albin[eio],  Willelmum  camerarivun  de  Tancarvilla,  Willelmum  Patricium, 
Thomam  de  Sancto  lohanne,  Willelmiun  Piperelliun  de  Airam,  Gaufridum 
de  Clintona,  Rotbertum  de  Haia  Putei,  Hugonem  de  Guilleio,  Edwardum 
Salesberiensem,  Rannulfmn  canceUarium,  lohannem  Baiocensis  episcopi 
filivun,  Rotbertum  Peccatum,  Gaufridiun  capellanum,  Walterum  de  Culleio, 
Rannulfum  de  Dusseio. 

Hec  dilEnitio  fuit  diffinita  et  hec  carta  sigillata  ante  me  apud  Argenteium. 
Teste  (sic)  episcopo  Luxoviensi  lohanne  et  Eudone  Cadumensium  mona- 
chorum  abbate  et  monachis  Wino  de  Allemania  et  NigeUo  et  comite  de 
Pertica  Rotroco  et  Rogero  IMarmione  et  Ricardo  capellano  et  Symone  de 
Molins  et  Hamelino  de  Lesclusa. 


CHARTERS  OF  HENRY  I 


3 

1 1 19,  at  Rouen  'in  thalamo  regis' 

Confirmation  of  charter  of  Robert,  earl  of  Leicester,  on  behalf  of  Bee 
and  Saint-Nicaise  of  Meulan. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  modern  copy  in  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Collec- 
tion du  Vexin,  iii.  171,  no.  246. 

Anno  ab  incamatione  millesimo  centesimo  decimo  none  ego  Robertus 
comes  Leicestrie  do  ecclesie  Sancte  Marie  Becci  et  ecclesie  Sancti  Nigasii  de 
Mellento  decern  libras  et  quinque  solidatas  terre  in  manerio  de  Pinpra  in 
escambium  pro  terra  RaduM  Piquet  K  ?)  de  Blinchefeld  que  reddebat  viii 
libras  et  quinque  solidos,  et  pro  quadraginta  solidos  quos  debebat  pater 
meus  eidem  ecclesie  Sancti  Nigasii  in  manerio  de  Hungrefort.^  Et  hoc  feci 
pro  deliberatione  anime  patris  mei.  Ego  Henricus  rex  Dei  gratia  rex  Anglorum 
hoc  donum  concedo  et  signo  et  sigillo  meo  confirmo.  Testes  Galerannus 
comes  Mellenti,  Nigellus  de  Albegneio,  GuOlelmus  de  TancarviUa,  Gaufridus 
de  MagnaviUa,  Willelmus  filius  Roberti,  Odardus  dapifer  de  Mellento,  Ra. 
Pinter ?),  Gaufridus  de  Curvilla,  in  thalamo  regis  apud  Rothomagum. 

4 

1117-1U9,  at  Rouen 

Writ  confirming  the  nuns  of  Saint-Amand  in  their  livery  at 
Vaudreuil  {Eure)} 

A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  in  hand  of  the  twelfth  century,  at  the  end  of 
quasi-original  of  foiuidation  charter  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure; 
C,  vidimus  of  Philip  IV  in  1313,  ibid.,  and  Archives  Nationales,  JJ.  49, 
f.  26v. 

H.  rex  Anglorum  vicecomiti  de  valle  Rodolii  salutem.  Precipio  quod 
moniales  de  Sancto  Amando  ita  bene  et  plenarie  habeant  liberationem  de 
elemosina  mea  Rodolii  sicut  unquam  aliquis  antecessor  illarum  earn  melius 
habuit.  Et  hoc  habeant  a  die  Ula  qua  lohannes  Rubi  presbiter  antecessor 
earum  fuit  mortuus  in  antea.  Testibus  Radulfo  archiepiscopo  Cantuariensi 
et  Rannulfo  cancellario,  apud  Rothomagum. 

1  MS.  Pi^c  followed  by  a  blank. 

*  Pimperne,  Blandford  (co.  Dorset),  Hungerford  (co.  Berks). 
'  MS.  Pit'. 

*  Cf.  Stapleton,  i.  m. 


296 


APPENDIX  F 


5 

1106-1120,  at  Rouen 

Order  to  Hugh  de  Montfort  to  restore  to  the  abbot  of  Bee  certain  lands  oj 
Sainl-Philbert-sur-Risle  and  the  church  of  Saint-Ouen[-de-Flancourt] 
{Eure)} 

A,  original  lost;  B,  modern  copy  in  MS.  Lat.  13905,  f.  83,  with 
omissions. 

H.  rex  Anglorum  Hugoni  de  Monteforti  salutem.  Precipio  tibi  ut  facias 
resaisiri  abbatem  de  Becco  de  viginti  acris  terre  que  pertinent  ecclesie 
Sancti  Philiberti  et  de  ecclesia  Sancti  Audoeni  quas  Galefridus  dapifer  tuus 
saisivit.  Et  ecclesiam  et  decimam  fac  eum  tenere  in  pace  et  quiete.  .  .  . 
Nolo  enim  ut  quis  eum  placitet  de  aliqua  re  unde  fuit  saisitus  die  qua  dedi 
tibi  honorem  de  Monfort  nisi  coram  me.  Apud  Rothomagum. 

6 

1 124,  at  Evreux 

Confirmation  to  Savigny  of  the  gift  of  Robert  de  Tdtes  in  Escures 
(Calvados) . 

A,  original  sealed  sur  simple  queue,  in  Archives  of  the  Manche,  a 
considerable  portion  of  the  seal,  in  brown  wax,  still  remaining;  B, 
cartulary  of  Savigny,  ibid.,  f.  51,  no.  197,  where  it  is  preceded  (no.  196) 
by  the  charter  of  Robert,  witnessed  by  Richard,  bishop  of  Bayeux,  and 
dated  11 24.  Cf.  Auvry,  Eistoire  de  la  congregation  de  Sadgny,  i.  404. 

H.  rex  Angl[orum]  episcopo  Baioc[ensi]  et  omnibus  baronibus  et  fidelibus 
suis  de  Beisin  salutem.  Sciatis  me  concessisse  ecclesi§  Sanct§  Trinitatis 
de  Savinneio  et  monachis  ibi  Deo  servientibus  donationem  terr§  quam 
Rotbertus  de  Testis  habebat  in  villa  de  Scuris  et  quam  Rotbertus  Gaufr[ido] 
abbati  et  ipsis  monachis  dedit  et  concessit  in  elemosinam  concessu  Ricardi 
episcopi  Baioc[ensis]  de  cuius  feodo  terra  ipsa  est.  Et  volo  et  firmiter  pre- 
cipio ut  bene  et  in  pace  et  honorifice  teneant  sicut  predictus  Rotbertus  earn 
eis  dedit  et  concessit  in  possessionem  perpetuam. 

T[estibus]  Turstino  Eboracensi  archiepiscopo  et  fratre  eius  Oino  Ebroi- 
censi  episcopo  et  lohanne  Baioc[ensi],  apud  Ebroicas. 

1  Saint-Ouen-de-Flancourt,  granted  to  Bee  and  Saint-Philbert  in  1097  (Poree, 
Bee,  i.  407),  seems  more  probable  than  Saint-Ouen-du-Bois-Toustain,  which  also 
belonged  to  Bee  (now  La  Noe-Poulain;  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  ii.  472). 


CHARTERS  OF  HENRY  I 


297 


7 

I I 18-1126,  at  Rouen 

Confirmation  to  the  abbot  and  monks  of  Lire  of  the  mills  and  forge  of  La 
Neuve-Lire  (Eure). 

A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  in  lost  cartulary  of  the  thirteenth  century 
formerly  "  parmi  les  mss.  de  la  bibliotheque  du  college  des  jesuites  de 
Paris  ";  C,  copy  from  B  by  Dom  Lenoir  at  Semilly,  xxiii.  453,  Ixxii. 
329;  D,  extracts  from  B  in  Collection  Moreau,  xlvii.  65. 

Robert  became  earl  of  Leicester  on  the  death  of  his  father,  Robert 
of  Meulan,  in  11 18;  and  Ralph  of  Toeny  was  dead  by  11 26  (Ordericus, 
ii.  404). 

Henricus  rex  Anglie  G[aufrido]  archiepiscopo  Rothomagensi  et  omnibus 
episcopis  et  iusticiariis  et  abbatibus  et  baronibus  et  fidelibus  suis  totius  Nor- 
mannie  salutem.  Sciatis  me  concessisse  Deo  et  ecclesie  Sancte  Marie  de  Lyra 
et  abbati  et  monachis  ibi  Deo  servientibus  per  petitionem  comitis  Roberti  de 
Leicestria  et  Guheri  de  Morevilla  et  concessionem  eorum  molendina  de  nova 
Lira  et  forgiam  in  eadem  villa  in  elemosinam  sicut  Radulfus  de  Witot  ea  eis 
reddidit  et  concessit  in  elemosinam.  Et  vole  et  firmiter  precipio  ut  abbas  ea 
ita  bene  et  in  pace  et  honorifice  et  quiete  in  elemosinam  ipse  et  monachi  sui 
teneant  sicut  ecclesia  ilia  melius  et  honorificentius  tenet  aliam  elemosinam 
suam  et  sicut  predictus  Radulfus  ea  eis  concessit  et  reddidit. 

Testibus  Oino  episcopo  Ebroicensi  et  lohanne  episcopo  Luxoviensi  et 
Radulfo  de  Todeneio  et  Radulfo  pincerna  et  Roberto  de  Novo  Burgo  et 
Emaldo  de  Bosco,  apud  Rothomagum. 

8 

1127  (?),  after  26  August 

Confirmation  of  the  gifts  of  Jordan  de  Sai  and  his  wife  in  founding  the 
abbey  of  Aunay. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  vidimus  of  Philip  VI  in  1335,  Archives  Nation- 
ales,  JJ.  69,  no.  100.  Cf.  vidimus  of  1347  in  Archives  of  the  Calvados; 
Ms.  Lat.  n.  a.  1245,  f.  28. 

If  the  date  is  correctly  given  in  the  vidimus,  it  should  replace  the  date 
of  1 131  usually  given  for  the  foundation  of  Aunay:  Gallia  Christiana, 
xi.  443;  G.  Le  Hardy,  Etude  sur  Aunay-sur-Odon,  in  Bulletin  des 
Antiquaires  de  Normandie,  xix  (1897).  Otherwise  we  must  emend 
MCXXXIL 


298 


APPENDIX  F 


In  nomine  sancte  et  individue  trinitatis.  Ego  Henricus  Dei  gratia  rex 
Anglorum  et  dux  Normannorum  anno  M°.C°.XXVII°.  ab  incarnatione 
Domini,  pro  salute  anime  mee  ac  patris  et  matris  mee  uxorumque  mearum  et 
prolis  mee,  donacionem  quam  fecit  Jordains  de  Saieio  et  Lucia  uxor  eius  et 
filii  sui,  videlicet  Engerannus,  Gilebertus,  Petrus,  concessu  Stephani  comitis 
Moretoniensis  et  auctoritate  Richardi  Baiocensis  episcopi,  pro  animabus 
suis  et  antecessorum  suorum,  ecclesie  Sancte  Trinitatis  de  Alneio  et  domno 
Viviano  abbati  et  monachis  concedo  et  regali  auctoritate  confirmo :  videlicet 
ad  Alneium  partem  foreste  que  est  inter  inferiorem  viam  et  torrentem,  ubi  et 
ecclesiam  predictis  monachis  construxerunt,  et  ex  altera  parte  eiusdem  tor- 
rentis  de  propinquiori  terra  decem  acras  et  decimam  molendinorum  suo- 
rum et  pecconmi ;  et  ecclesiam  de  HerovUla' ;  et  in  Rin villa  quod  habet  in 
ecclesia  et  in  decima;  et  ecclesias  de  Cenilleio  sicut  Gislebertus  filius  Gun- 
duini  possedit,  a  quo  predictus  Jordains  habuit  concessione  Richardi  Con- 
stanciensis  episcopi;  insuper  et  terram  elemosinariam  que  pertinet  eisdem 
ecclesiis,  et  decimam  molendinorum  de  RoumiUeio,  et  ad  Haneiras  terram 
duos  modios  frumenti  reddentem,  et  in  Anglia  de  redditu  sexaginta  solidos 
sterlingorum.  Hec  autem  supradicta  precipio  ut  quiete  et  libere  possideant 
monachi,  et  hoc  propria  manu  signo  sancte  crucis  corroboro. 

9 

1 1 23-1 129,  at  Vaudreuil 

Notification  to  the  bishop  of  Worcester  and  the  sheriff  and  men  of  Wor- 
cestershire that  Henry  has  confirmed  to  Walter  de  Beauchamp  the  land 
granted  him  by  Adeliza,  wife  of  Urse  of  Abbetot. 

Subsequent  to  11 23,  being  witnessed  by  Geoffrey  as  chancellor,  and 
anterior  to  1130,  when  Roger  'gener  Alberti'  was  dead  (Pipe  Roll,  p. 
39).  Eyton  (British  Museum,  Add.  MSS.  31941,  f-  58,  and  31943, 
f.  79)  dates  it  ca.  October  11 28. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  by  Dugdale  in  his  MSS.  in  the  Bodleian 
Library,  L.  18,  f.  41,  copied  for  me  by  the  kindness  of  Professor  H.  L. 
Gray. 

H.  rex  Anglorum  episcopo  Wigomie  et  vicecomiti  et  omnibus  baronibus  et 
fidelibus  suis  Francis  et  Anglis  de  Wirecestresira  salutem.  Sciatis  me  con- 
cessisse  Waltero  de  Bellocampo  terram  que  fuit  Adeliz  uxoris  Ursonis  de 
Abbetot,  sicut  ipsa  Adeliz  earn  ei  concessit.  Et  volo  et  firmiter  precipio  ut 
teneat  ita  bene  et  in  pace  et  honorifice  et  quiete  de  omnibus  consuetudinibus, 
sicut  Urso  antecessor  suus  unquam  melius  et  honorificentius  et  quietius  tenuit 
in  vita  sua,  cum  socha  et  sacha  et  tol  et  theam  et  infangeneteof  et  cum  omni- 
bus aliis  consuetudinibus  suis  cum  quibus  Urso  unquam  melius  tenuit,  in 
bosco  et  piano,  in  aqua  et  terra  et  omnibus  aliis  locis. 

1  The  places  mentioned  are  Herouville,  Ranville,  and  Asnieres  in  Calvados,  and 
Cenilly  and  Rdmilly  in  La  Manche. 


CHARTERS  OF  HENRY  I 


299 


Testibus  Gaufrido  cancellario  et  Roberto  de  sigillo  et  Willelmo  Pevrello 
Dovre  et  Willelmo  filio  Odonis  et  Willelmo  de  Pontearcarum  et  Pevrello  de 
Bellocampo  et  Pagano  de  BeUocampo  et  Roberto  filio  WLUelmi  de  Stochis  et 
Willelmo  Malotraverso  et  Roberto  de  Monteviron  et  Gaufrido  de  Abbetot  et 
Roberto  filio  Radulphi  de  Hastingis  et  Roberto  de  Guernai  et  Roberto  filio 
Fulcheri  et  Rogero  genero  Alberti  et  lohanne  hostiario  et  Henrico  del  Broc. 
Apud  Rodolium. 

10 

February  1131,  at  Rouen 

Grant  to  Seez  cathedral  of  the  fief  of  William  Goth  at  Laleu  (Orne). 
A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  in  Livre  rouge  of  Seez,  f.  77,  formerly  in 
possession  of  the  bishop;  C,  copy  from  B  in  MS.  Lat.  11058,  f.  3. 

Henricus  Dei  gracia  rex  Anglorum  et  dux  Normannorum  archiepiscopo 
Rothomagensi  et  episcopis  et  abbatibus,  baronibus  et  omnibus  fidelibus  et 
filiis  sancte  ecclesie  per  Normanniam  constitutis  ^  salutem.  Sciatis  quod  ego 
Henricus  per  graciam  Dei  rex  Anglorum  et  dux  Normannorum  dedi  in  ele- 
mosinam  et  concessi  pro  salute  animarum  patris  et  matris  mee  et  parentum 
meonun  et  pro  remissione  peccatorum  meormn  et  pro  statu  et  incolumitate 
regni  nostri  et  ducatus  Normanie  Deo  et  ecclesie  sanctorum  martirum 
Gervasii  et  Prothasii  de  Sagio  in  dominium  ecclesie  et  proprium  usum  epis- 
copi  totum  feodum  Alodii  quem  tenuit  GuiUelmus  Goth:  hoc  est  quicquid 
ipse  GuiUelmus  Goth  habuit  inter  Sartam  et  Tancham  tam  in  terris  quam  in 
pratis  et  aquis  et  molendinis  et  silvestribus  ^  nemoribus  et  hominibus  et  the- 
loneis  et  consuetudinibus  et  omnibus  omnino  rebus,  sicut  idem  GuiUelmus 
quietius  et  liberius^  tenuit  tempore  patris  mei.  Quem  feodum  ego  emi  de  mea 
propria  pecunia  de  Avelina  nepte  ipsius  Guihelmi  et  Ricardo  de  Luceio  filio 
ipsius  Aveline  et  iustis  heredibus  predicti  Alodii,  quod  ipsi,  Avelina  scilicet  et 
Ricardus  et  iusti  heredes  eiusdem  feodi,  eum  in  manu  Roberti  filii  comitis 
Gloescestrie  videntibus  multis  reddiderunt  et  postea  vendicionem  istam 
coram  me  cognoverunt  et  confirmaverunt  et  eam  quietam  de  se  et  suis 
heredibus  clamaverunt.  Et  ego  predictum  feodum  Alodii  ita  Uberum  et  quie- 
tum  ab  eis  et  omnibus  heredibus  concedo  et  confirmo  Sanctis  martiribus 
Gervasio  et  Prothasio  et  episcopo  in  elemosinam  sicut  supra  dictum  est. 

Hanc  ergo  donacionem  meam  factam  anno  ab  incarnacione  Domini 
millesimo  centesimo  trigesimo  primo  laudo  et  concedo,  confirmo  et  illi* 
ecclesie  in  perpetuum  obtinendam  regia  potestate  et  a  Deo  michi  auctoritate 
collata  corroboro.  Teste  presencia  et  audiencia  Hugonis  archiepiscopi 
Rothomagensis,^  lohannis  Lexoviensis,  Audini^  Ebroicensis  episcopi,  Ri- 
chardi  episcopi  Baiocensis,  lohannis  episcopi  tunc  Sagiensis,  Roberti  de 
sigillo  et  Nigelli  nepotis  episcopi  de  Saresberia,  Roberti  comitis  Gloescestre 

1  MS.  constitute.  *  MS.  ille. 

2  MS.  silvestris.  ^  MS.  Hugone  archid[iacono]  Rothomagensi. 
'  MS.  quietus  et  liberus.      '  MS.  Actini. 


300 


APPENDIX  F 


filii  mei,  Guillelmi  comitis  Warenne  et  Walerani  comitis  Mellenti  et  Ro- 
berti  comitis  Legrecestrie,  Roberti  de  Haia  dapiferi  et  Hugonis  Bigot  dapi- 
feri  et  Rabelli  cammerarii  et  Brientii  filii  comitis  conestabularii  et  Gaufridi 
de  Clintone.'  Apud  Rothomagum  mense  Februario. 

11 

Summer  1131,  at  Dieppe 

Confirmation  of  the  establishment  of  Augustinian  canons  in  Seez 
cathedral,  grant  of  land  at  Brighthampton,  and  confirmation  of  lands  and 
churches  in  Normandy  and  of  fixed  revenues  in  the  farm  of  Argentan  and 
the  tolls  of  Exmes  and  Falaise. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  collated  copy  therefrom  in  1521  also  lost;  C, 
copy  from  B  in  Coppies  de  tiltres  du  chartraire  (1633)  at  Alenfon, 
MS.  177,  f.  98;  D,  copy  in  Livre  rouge  of  Seez,  f.  69;  E,  copy  from  D  in 
MS.  Lat.  1 1058,  f.  8.  Extracts  in  E.H.R.,  xxiv.  223;  Ordericus,  iv. 
471,  note;  supra,  Chapter  I,  note  174;  Chapter  III,  p.  106.  Cf.  charter 
of  Bishop  John,  MS.  Lat.  11058,  f.  5;  incomplete  in  Gallia  Christiana, 
xi.  instr.  160. 

In  nomine  sancte  et  individue  trinitatis  patris  et  filii  et  spiritus  sancti 
amen.  Henricus  rex  Anglorum  et  dux  Normannorum  archiepiscopis,  epis- 
copis,  abbatibus,  comitibus,  baronibus,  et  omnibus  fidelibus  suis  tocius  Anglie 
et  Normannie  salutem.  Quoniam  regie  sublimitatis  insignia  gerimus  et  iura 
Christiane  religionis  et  solicitudinem  ecclesiastice  defensionis  administramus, 
oportet  nos  interim  omnibus  sancte  ecclesie  filiis  benefacere  precipueque 
pauperibus  et  in  Christo  religiose  viventibus  misericorditer  subvenire,  et 
quorum  preces  et  vite  sinceritas  terram  elevat  celum  inclinat  unaque  iungit 
superius,  eorum  quieti  atque  necessitatibus  clementer  intendamus  ut  omni- 
potentis  Dei  servicio  valeant  vacare  liberius.  Quapropter  Sagiensem  eccle- 
siam  temporalibus  et  spirit ualibus  bonis  admodum  desolatam  ad  normam 
rectioris  vite  studuimus  erigere  et  ad  lucem  vere  religionis  excitare,  et 
quoniam  reverende  memorie  papa  Honorius  per  apostolicas  litteras  in  remis- 
sionem  peccatorum  meorum  mihi  iniunxerat  ut  ad  regulares  canonicos  in 
ecclesia  Sagiensi  introducendos  intenderem  et  eos  de  meis  facultatibus 
misericorditer  sustentarem;  idcirco  fratribus  regularibus  in  ipsa  Sagiensi 
ecclesia  Dei  gratia  iam  introductis  et  sub  regula  Beati  Augustini  omnipotent! 
Deo  servire  studentibus  et  professis,  ipsis  inquam  eorumque  successoribus 
concedimus  atque  confirmamus  in  predicta  Sagiensi  ecclesia  pontificalis  sedis 
potestatem  libere  et  canonice  Domino  servienti  atque  ut  post  decessionem 
aliorum  canonicorum  in  communes  ususregularium  statim  transeant  beneficia 
prebendarum,  ita  quod  ipsis  viventibus  constituti  redditus  eorum  nullatenus 
minuantur. 

'  MS.  Dint. 


CHARTERS  OF  HENRY  I 


301 


Ipsis  etiam  fratribus  regularibus  damus  et  confirmamus  m  regno  nostra 
in  Anglia  decern  libratas  terre  in  manerio  nostra  de  Bentona,  videlicet  Bristel- 
metonam  ^  que  est  ^  membrum  ipsius  manerii,  et  volo  et  regia  auctoritate 
confinno  ut  bene  et  honorifice  et  in  pace  et  libere  et  quiete  teneant  semper  et 
in  perpetuum  de  hidagiis  et  geldis  et  dangeldis  et  auxiliis  et  operacionibus, 
cum  socha  et  sacha  et  tholl  et  theam  et  infangenteof  et  omnibus  consuetudi- 
nibus  et  libertatibus  et  placitis  et  querelis  et  omnibus  rebus  cum  quibus  ego 
tenebam  dum  esset  in  meo  dominio,  et  homines  eorum  placitent  in  hallmoto 
suo  de  Bristelmetona  in  submonicione  eorumdem  canoniconim  vel  ministro- 
rum  suorum. 

Ipsis  quoque  fratribus  regularibus  damus  et  confirmamus  quindecim 
libras  Rothomagensis  monete  quas  dedi  in  dedicacione  ipsius  ecclesie  in 
unoquoque  anno  habendas,  scilicet  septem  libras  et  decem  solidos  in  teloneo 
meo  de  Falesia  et  septem  libras  et  decem  solidos  in  teloneo  meo  de  Oximis. 
Concedimus  etiam  atque  confirmamus  predictis  fratribus  regularibus 
donationem  eis  factam  ecclesiarum  de  Bellimensi  pago  cum  omnibus  rebus 
ad  eas  pertinentibus,  scilicet  ecclesiam  Sancti  lohannis  de  Foresta  et  eccle- 
siam  Sancti  Quintini.' 

Ad  dominiimi  autem  et  proprium  usum  Sagiensis  episcopi  damus  et  con- 
firmamus totum  feodum  Alodii  quern  tenuit  GuiUelmus  Ghot,  hoc  est 
quicquid  ipse  habuit  inter  Sartam  et  Tancham  tam  in  terris  quam  in  pratis  et 
aquis  et  molendinis  et  silvis  et  hominibus  et  teloneis  et  consuetudinibus  et 
omnibus  omnino  rebus,  sicut  idem  Guillelmus  quietius  et  liberius  tenuit 
tempore  patris  mei;  quem  feodum  ego  emi  de  nostra  propria  pecunia  de 
Avelina  nepte  ipsius  Guillelmi  et  Ricardo  de  Luceio  filio  ipsius  Aveline  et  de 
iustis  heredibus  predicti  Alodii,  et  ipsi,  Avelina  scilicet  et  Ricardus,  et  iusti 
heredes  eiusdem  feodi  eum  in  manu  Roberti  filii  nostri  comitis  Glocestrie 
videntibus  multis  reddiderunt  et  postea  coram  me  vendicionem  istam 
cognoverunt  et  confirmaverunt  et  eam  quietam  de  se  et  suis  heredibus  con- 
cesserunt.  Et  ego  predictum  feodum  Alodii  ita  liberum  et  quietum  ab  eis 
et  omnibus  heredibus  concedo  et  confinno  Sanctis  martyribus  Gervasio  et 
Protasio  in  dominium  et  proprios  usus  episcopi. 

Quecumque  etiam  preter  supradicta  ecclesia  Sagiensis  hodie^  possidet  tam 
ad  proprium  usum  episcopi  quam  ad  usum  canonicorum,  hoc  est  ad  usum 
episcopi  dimidietatem  burgi  Sagii  cum  terra  et  pratis  que  in  dominio  habet 
episcopus  circa  civitatem  et  dimidietatem  telonei  ipsius  civitatis  et  villam 
Floreii  ^  cum  omnibus  suis  appenditiis,  preterea  in  BeUimensi  pago  villam 

1  Bampton,  Brighthampton  (co.  Oxford).  The  land  was  in  the  hamlet  of  Hard- 
wicke,  as  appears  from  the  heading  in  the  cartularies:  '  Charta  et  confirmatio 
Henrici  regis  Anglie  de  redditibus  canonicorum  regularium  in  ecclesia  Sagiensi  et 
redditibus  eorundem  canonicorum  in  Normannia  et  in  Anglia  apud  Hardric  (E: 
Hardore)  et  apud  Bristelametone.'  Cf.  Pipe  Roll  31  Henry  I,  p.  52,  from  which  it 
would  appear  that  the  ten  Ubrates  were  originally  in  Essex  or  Herts. 

2  Om.  C. 

'  Saint- Jean-de-la-For^t  and  Saint-Quentin-le-Petit  (Ome). 
*  Laleu  (Orne). 
'  Fleur6  (Orne). 


302 


APPENDIX  F 


Sancti  Frogentii,*  que  omnia  antiquitus  tenuit  episcopus  Sagiensis;  ad 
usum  vero  canonicorum  Bodevillam/  [ecclesias  de  Condeto  et  de  Estretz,]*  et 
decimam  telonei  Sagii,  scilicet  illius  partis  que  est  episcopi,  et  partem  mei  que 
dicitur  Croleium,^  et  terram  que  est  apud  Lurieium/"  que  onmia  tempore 
patris  nostri  canonici  eiusdem  ecclesie  tenuerunt;  preterea  duodecim  libras 
in  firma  nostra  de  Argentomo  et  viginti  et  unum  solidos  in  teloneo  eiusdem 
ville  et  sexaginta  solidos  et  decem  denarios  de  teloneo  meo  de  Oximis,  que 
dederunt  pater  meus  et  mater  mea  ecclesie  Sagiensi  ad  victum  canoniconun 
duorum,  quod  antiquitus  in  elemosinam  statutum  fuerat. 

Hec,  inquam,  que  supradicta  sunt  et  quecumque  in  futurum  nostra  vel 
successorum  meorum  concessione  iuste  poterunt  adquirere  ipsis,  scilicet 
episcopo  et  canonicis,  concedimus  et  confirmamus.  Preterea  consuetudines  et 
quietudines  quas  a  tempore  patris  mei  habuerunt  tam  episcopus  quam 
canonici  in  terra  et  in  forestis  Guillelmi  de  Belismo  ipsis,  episcopo  scUicet  et 
fratribus  regiilaribus,  concedimus  atque  confirmamus.  Quecumque  ergo 
persona  contra  huius  nostre  donacionis  et  constitucionis  decretum  venire 
tentaverit,  secundo  tercioque  commonita,  nisi  digne  satisfecerit,  regie 
maiestatis  rea  nostre  vindicte  subiacebit. 

Et  ut  hec  nostra  donatio  et  constitutio  certior  habeatur  et  firmior,  propria 
manu  nostra  atque  sigillo  nostro  muniri  fecimus.  Facta  est  autem  atque 
confirmata  hec  pagina  apud  Diepam  anno  ab  incarnatione  dominica  mil- 
lesimo  centesimo  trigesimo  primo,  me  Henrico  in  Anglia  regnante  et  Nor- 
mannorum  ducatum  tenente,  Innocentio  papa  secundo  Ausonie  cathedre 
presidente.  S.  Hugonis  archiepiscopi,"  Audini  episcopi  Ebroicensis,  loannis 
episcopi  Lexoviensis,  Roberti  de  Haia  dapiferi,  Unfredi  de  Bohun  dapiferi, 
RabeUi  camerarii,  GuUlielmi  filii  Odonis  conestabularii,  Guillelmi  Maledocti" 
camerarii. 

12 

After  August  1131,  at  Waltham 

Grant  to  Seez  cathedral  of  ten  librates  of  land,  namely  Brighthampton, 
from  the  king's  manor  of  Bampton. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  therefrom  in  152 1  also  lost;  C,  copy  from 
B  in  MS.  Alenfon  177,  f.  103;  D,  copy  in  Livre  rouge,  f.  71;  E,  copy 
from  D  in  MS.  Lat.  11058,  f.  11. 

*  Saint-Fulgent-des-Ormes  (Orne). 
'  This  I  have  not  identified. 

'  'Ecclesias  .  .  .  Estretz' is  corrected  in  E  in  Delisle's  hand  from 'cum  omnibus 
appendiciis  suis,'  which  is  also  the  reading  of  C.  I  do  not  know  the  sourceof  DeUsle's 
correction,  unless  it  be  a  marginal  note  in  D.  These  churches,  Conde-sur-Ifs  and 
Estrees-la-Campagne  (Calvados),  were  both  dependencies  of  Seez  cathedral:  Lon- 
gnon,  Pouilles  de  la  province  de  Roiien,  p.  232. 

'  Goleium,  E.  "  Archidiaconi,  CE. 

Lieurey  (Calvados)  ?  ^  Maledicti,  C. 


CHARTERS  OF  HENRY  I 


Henricus  rex  Anglie  archiepiscopis,  episcopis,  abbatibus,  comitibus, 
baronibus,  vicecomitibus,  et  omnibus  ministris  et  fidelibus  suis  Francis  et 
Anglis  salutem.  Sciatis  me  dedisse  et  concessisse  ecclesie  sanctorum  marty- 
rum  Gervasii  et  Protasii  de  Sagio  ad  usum  canonicorum  in  dedicatione 
ipsius  ecclesie  decem  libratas  terre  de  manerio  meo  de  Bentona,  videlicet 
Bristelmetonam  que  est  membrum  ipsius  manerii,  cum  omnibus  appendiciis 
suis  pro  remissione  peccatorum  meorum  et  pro  animabus  patris  et  matris  mee 
et  predecessorum  meorum  et  successorum  meorum  et  pro  statu  regni  nostri. 
Et  volo  et  firmiter  precipio  ut  bene,  honorifice,  et  in  pace  et  libere  et  quiete 
teneant  semper  et  in  perpetuum  de  hidagiis  et  geldis  et  danegeldis  et  auxiliis 
et  operationibus,  cum  socha  et  sacha  et  toll  et  theam  et  infangeteof  et  omni- 
bus consuetudinibus  et  libertatibus  et  placitis  et  querelis  et  omnibus  rebus 
cimi  quibus  ego  tenebam  dum  esset  in  meo  dominio,  in  terris  et  aquis  et 
pratis  et  pascuis  et  molendinis  et  nemoribus  et  in  piano  et  in  omnibus  locis, 
et  homines  sui  placitent  in  hallimoto  suo  de  Bristelmetona  in  submonicione 
canonicorum  Sagii  vel  ministrorum  suorum. 

Testibus  Guilielmo  archiepiscopo  Cantuariensi  et  Turstino  archiepiscopo 
Eboracensi  et  Alexandro  episcopo  Lincolniensi  et  Henrico  episcopo  Wi[n]to- 
niensi  et  Gilberto  episcopo  Londiniensi  et  Rogerio  episcopo  Salesberiensi  et 
Gaufrido  canceUario  et  Roberto  de  sigillo  et  Roberto  comite  Glocestrie  et 
Waleranno  comite  de  Mellent  et  Hugone  Bigot  dapifero  et  Unfredo  de 
Bouhun  dapifero  et  Milone  de  Gloecestria  et  Roberto  de  OUeio  et  Pagano 
filio  loannis  et  Eustachio  filio  loannis  et  Henrico  de  Ferrariis  et  Gaufrido 
filio  Pagani  et  Richardo  Basset.  Apud  Waltham  videntibus  et  audientibus 
istis  confirmata  est  hec  pagina  anno  ab  incarnatione  Domini  millesimo 
centesimo  trigesimo  primo. 

13 

1107-1133,  at  Westminster 

Order  to  William  of  Pont  de  VArche  to  deliver,  on  the  oath  of  the  men  of 
Bosham,  thirty  solidates  of  land  in  Walton  (co.  Sussex)  in  exchange  for 
land  which  the  king  has  given  to  Notre-Dame-du-Pre. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  in  Public  Record  OflSce,  Cartae  Antiquae, 
R.  22. 

H.  rex  Anglie  Willelmo  de  Pontearcharum  salutem.  Libera  Willelmo  filio 
Aernulfi  .xxx.  solidatas  terre  per  sacramentum  hominum  vicinitatis  de 
Boseham,  et  hoc  de  illis  .1.  solidatas  terre  quas  Robertus  tenebat  in  Waletona, 
pro  escambio  terre  sue  quam  ego  dedi  Sancte  Marie  de  Prato.  Et  precipio 
quod  ita  bene  et  honorifice  et  quiete  teneat  earn  sicut  melius  et  honorabiHus 
tenuit  terram  suam  de  Normannia.  Teste  episcopo  Saresberie  apud  Wes- 
monasterium. 


304 


APPENDIX  F 


14 

1106-  1135,  or  1154-1173 

Charter  of  Henry  I  or  Henry  II  confirming  to  the  monks  of  Conches 
free  election  and  freedom  from  customs  in  England  and  at  Dieppe. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  incomplete  copy  in  Couiumier  of  Dieppe,  Ar- 
chives of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  G.  851,  f.  59. 

Henricus  rex  Anglorum,  etc.  Sciatis  me  concessisse  et  presenti  carta  mea 
confirmasse  pro  salute  anime  mee  et  aDtecessorum  meorum  monachis  et 
ecclesie*  Sancti  Petri  de  Castellionis  domino  servientibus  liberam  et  quietam 
ellectionem  abbatis  secundam  regvdam  Sancti  Benedicti  et  quod  homines 
eorum  in  Anglia  manentes  sint  liberi  et  quieti  de  omnibus  consuetudinibus 
et  querelis  ad  me  pertinentibus.  Et  in  Normannia  apud  portum  qui  vocatur 
Deppa  sint  ^  monachi  et  omnes  res  eorum  et  proprii  famuli  liberi  et  quieti  de 
omni  passagio  et  de  omni  consuetudine  in  villa,  et  de  omnibus  homitiibus 
eoriuii  ibi  manentibus  habeant  dicti  monachi  les  euces,'  et  si  homines  eonmi 
habuerint  naves  in  mari  piscantes,  quicquid  de  navibus  iUis  ad  me  pertinet 
amore  Dei  concedo  predictis  monachis.  In  verbis  predictis  est  tola  libertas  que 
in  carta  continetur. 

15 

1107-  1135,  at  Argentan 

Writ  directing  that  the  monks  of  Troarn  shall  not  be  impleaded  concern- 
ing the  castle  church  at  Vire  by  the  monks  of  La  Couture,  who  defaulted  in 
their  suit  before  the  king  at  Argentan. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  therefrom  ('  sigillata  est ')  in  Chartrier 
rouge,  MS.  Lat.  10086,  f.  40V. 

H.  rex  Anglorum  omnibus  baronibus,  etc.,  totius  Normannie  salutem. 
Precipio  ne  monachi  de  Truarcio  mittantur  in  placitum  aliquando  de  ec- 
clesia  de  Vira  quam  dedi  eis  in  elemosina  propter  clamorem  monachorum  de 
Cidtura,  quoniam  apud  Argent[omum]  coram  me  defecerunt  de  clamore 
quam  mihi  fecerant,  etc.  Et  ideo  per  finem  iusti  iudicii  remansit  monachis 
de  Truarcio  eadem  ecclesia  de  Vira.  Teste  H[amone]  de  Falesia  apud 
Argent  [omum]. 

16 

1107-1135,  at  Rouen 

Writ  of  protection  for  Saint-Phe  of  Chartres. 

A,  original,  formerly  sealed  sur  simple  queue,  in  MS.  Lat.  9221,  no.  7. 

H.  rex  Angl[orum]  arch[iepiscopo]  Roth[omagensi]  et  ep[iscop]is  et  omni- 
bus baron[ibus]  suis  Norm[aimie]  sal[utem].  Precipio  quod  abbas  S.  Petri 

1  MS.  ecclesia.  *  MS.  sine.  ^  ues? 


CHARTERS  OF  HENRY  I 


Cam[otensis]  et  monachi  teneant  ecclesias  et  terras  et  elemosinas  et  omnes 
decimas  et  redditus  suos  de  Norm[annia]  et  omnes  quietat[iones]  suas  ita 
bene  et  in  pace  et  honorifice  sicut  melius  tenuerunt  tempore  patris  mei  et 
meo  et  sicut  iuste  tenere  debuerint.  Et  prohibeo  ne  iillus  eis  super  hoc  quic- 
quam  forifaciat.  T[este]  ep[iscop]o  Lex[oviensi]  apud  Rothom[aguni].^ 

17 

1107-1135,  at  Rouen 

Grant  to  the  chapter  of  Rouen  of  rights  in  the  forest  of  Aliermont  and  the 
king's  share  of  pleas  and  forfeitures  from  the  men  of  Saint-Vaast-d'- 
£quiqueville  and  Angreville  (Seine-Inferieure). 

A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  in  the  Cartulaire  de  Philippe  d'Alenqon  in 
Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  G.  7,  p.  792;  C,  copy  in  MS.  Baluze 
Ixxvii.  123.    Round,  no.  8. 

The  name  of  Robert  the  vicomte  places  the  charter  in  the  earlier  part 
of  Henry's  reign. 

Henricus  Dei  gratia  rex  Anglie  dux  Normannonun  archiepiscopo  Rotho- 
magensi  omnibusque  comitibus  baronibus  et  iusticiariis  Normannie  salutem. 
Sciatis  me  dedisse  ecclesie  Beate  Marie  Rothomagensi  in  elemosinam  quod 
decanus  eiusdem  ecclesie  et  canonicus  qui  habet  prebendam  de  AngerviUe 
habeant  in  foresta  nostra  Dalihermont  omnes  consuetudines  suas  liberas  et 
quietas  de  vivo  iacente  et  mortuo  stante  et  ligna  ad  herbergagia  sibi  et  homi- 
nibus  eorum  et  pasnagium  et  herbagium  et  omnes  redditus  foreste  et  qvucquid 
ad  me  pertinet  in  placitis  et  catallis  forefactis  in  misericordiis  de  omnibus  de 
Sancto  Vedasto  et  de  Angervilla. 

Testibus  lohanne  episcopo  Lexoviensi,  Roberto  vicecomite,  apud  Rotho- 
magum. 

18 

Ca.  1128-1135 

Writ  of  protection  for  Saint-Martin  of  Seez. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  modern  copy  in  MS.  Fr.  18953,  P-  45- 

Henricus  rex  Anglorum  Odoni  vicecomiti  de  Pembroq  salutem.  Precipio 
tibi  quod  facias  abbati  et  monachos  de  Sagio  tenere  omnes  res  suas  in  ecclesiis, 
terris,  decimis,  elemosinis,  et  omnibus  aliis  ita  bene  et  in  pace  et  iuste  sicut 
tenuenmt  tempore  Amulphi  et  Vilfridi  episcopi  et  Walteri  Glocesteriensis,' 
ne  super  hoc  eis  inde  aliqua  iniuria  fiat  et  ne  super  hoc  clamorem  audiam. 

*  Two  other  originals  of  Henry  I  for  Saint-Pere  are  in  the  same  MS. :  no.  6, 
printed  above,  p.  223;  and  no.  8,  printed  in  the  Cartulaire,  ed.  Guerard,  p.  640. 

1  Walter's  son  and  successor  Miles  was  in  ofiBce  the  year  before  the  Pipe  Roll  of 
1129-1130  (pp.  72,  76,  107). 


3o6 


APPENDIX  F 


19 

1121-1135,  at  Rouen 

Confirmation  to  Bee  of  a  grant  of  William  Peverel  in  Touffreville 
(Eure). 

A,  original  lost;  B,  fragment  of  cartulary  of  Bee  in  Archives  of  the 
Eure,  H.  91,  f.  35. 

H.  rex  Angl[oruin]  archiepiscopo  Rothomagensi  et  vic[ecomitibus]  et 
omnibus  fidelibus  Francis  et  Anglis  de  Normannia  salutem.  Sciatis  me  con- 
cessisse  Deo  et  ecclesie  Sancte  Marie  de  Becco  et  monachis  ibidem  Deo 
servientibus  terram  et  res  quas  Willelmus  Pevr[ellus]  eis  dedit  et  concessit  in 
elemosina  de  Turfreivilla  cvun  omnibus  consuetudinibus  et  quietacionibus  de 
pannagio  et  omnibus  rebus  que  terre  simili  pertinent  et  cum  quibus  Willelmus 
liberius  teniiit.  Quare  volo  et  precipio  quod  ipsi  eam  terram  et  omnia  que  ad 
earn  pertinent  bene  et  in  pace  et  libere  teneant  in  perpetua  elemosina  nimc  et 
usque  in  sempitemiun  sicut  Willelmus  ea  eis  dedit  et  concessit,  salva  tamen 
rectitudine  parentiun  Willelmi  si  quam  in  ea  habent. 

T[estibus]  R[oberto]  de  sigillo  et  G[aufrido]  fil[io]  Pag[ani]  et  A[nselmo] 
vic[ecomite],  apud  Rothom[agum]. 

20 

1124-1135,  at  Argentan 

Writ  of  freedom  from  toll  in  favor  of  the  monks  of  Vignats  (Saint- 
A  ndre-en-Gou ffem) . 

A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  in  cartulary  of  Saint- Andre  in  Archives  of 
the  Calvados,  f.  19,  no.  72. 

H.  rex  Anglorum  baronibus  et  omnibus  vicecomitibus  et  ministris  tocius 
Anglie  et  Normannie  et  portuum  maris  salutem.  Precipio  quod  totxun  corri- 
diiun  et  omnes  res  monachorum  de  abbatia  de  Vinaz  quas  servientes  eorum 
afl&dare  poterunt  pertinere  suo  dominico  victui  et  vestitui  sint  in  pace  et 
quiete  de  theloneo  et  passagio  et  omnibus  consuetudinibus.  Et  super  hoc  pro- 
hibeo  quod  nullus  eos  disturbet  iniuste  et  super  .x.  libras  forefacture.  Testi- 
bus  episcopo  I[ohanne]  Sagiensi  et  comite  de  Moritonio,  apud  Argentomum. 

21 

Ca.  1 130-1135,  at  Argentan 

Grant  of  a  house  at  Argentan  in  fief  to  the  king's  loricarii  Robert  and 
Eamelin} 

A,  original,  MS.  Lat.  10083,  ^o-  45       ^^PY  ^  cartulary  of  Saint- 

1  Cf.  the  charter  of  the  Empress  Matilda,  issued  before  1141,  when  her  brother 
took  the  title  of  earl  of  Cornwall  (Round,  Gecfrey  de  Mandeville,  pp.  68,  271), 


CHARTERS  OF  HENRY  I 


Andre-en-Gouffem,  in  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  f.  i8v,  no.  69;  C, 
modern  copy  in  MS.  Lat.  10084,  i^o-  37-  Cf.  M.A.N.,  viii.  388,  no.  136. 

H.  rex  Anglorum  iustic[iis]  Normannie  et  vicec[omitibus]  et  baronibus  et 
fidelibus  suis  et  preposito  et  omnibus  ministris  et  burgensibus  de  Argentom[o] 
salutem.  Sciatis  me  dedisse  et  concessisse  in  feodo  et  hereditate  quiete 
Roberto  et  Hamelino  loricariis  meis  de  Argentom[o]  unam  mansuram  terre 
in  Argentom[o]  in  fossato  inter  burgum  et  calciatam  sibi  et  heredibus  suis 
quietam  de  omni  consuetudine.  Quare  volo  et  firmiter  precipio  quod  ipsi  earn 
bene  et  in  pace  et  quiete  et  hereditabiliter  teneant.  T[estibus]  R.  de  Curci  et 
lohanne  mar[escallo]  et  Wigan[o]  mar[escallol  et  Rain[aldo]  fiI[io]  com[itis], 
ap[ud]  Argentom[\mi]. 

22 

1131-1135  (probably  after  1133),*  at  Seez 

Confirmation  to  Seez  cathedral  of  a  gift  by  Engtterran  Oison  of  land  for 
the  housing  of  the  canons  regular. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  therefrom  in  1521  also  lost;  C,  copy  from 
B  in  MS.  Alen^on  177,  f.  104;  D,  copy  in  Livre  rouge,  f.  71V;  E,  copy 
from  D  in  MS.  Lat.  11058,  f.  12. 

Henricus  Dei  gratia  rex  Anglorum  et  dux  Normannorum  archiepiscopo 
Rothomagensi  Hugoni,  episcopis,  abbatibus,  comitibus,  iusticiariis,  baronibus, 
vicecomitibus,  et  omnibus  fidelibus  suis  tocius  Normannie  salutem.  Sciatis 
quoniam  Ingelrannus  Oison  et  Guilielmus  filius  eius  coram  me  et  baronibus 
meis  apud  Sagium  in  perpetuam  elemosinam  concessenmt  Deo  et  ecclesie 
Sagiensi  tres  mansuras  terre  quas  idem  Ingelrannus  de  episcopo  tenuerat, 
scilicet  mansuram  que  fuerat  Gualteri  filii  Constantini  et  aliam  que  fuit 
Rogeri  Britonis  et  terciam  ^  que  fuit  Roberti  canonici,  ad  domos  regularium 
et'  canonicorum  eiusdem  ecclesie  edificandas.  Has  vero  mansuras  dedit  cimi 
Ingelranno  filio  suo  quem  episcopus  canonicum  regularem  fecit  ibidem,  et  pro 
hac  donacione  dedit  ei  episcopus  vi.  boves  et  unum  palefridum  in  pretium 
centvmi  solidorum  Cenomannensiimi.  Hanc  itaque  concessionem*  in  perpe- 
tuimi  valituram  eis  regia  auctoritate  confirmavi  et  sigUli  mei  impressione 
munivi. 

Testibus  loanne  episcopo  Lexoviensi  et  Galtero  filio  Pagani  et  Goscelino  de 
Bailleul  et  Roberto  de  sigillo,'  apud  Sagium. 

which  grants  to  Robert  loricarius  a  house  in  Caen:  original  in  MS.  Lat.  10083, 
no.  3  (cf.  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  141,  no.  ^,  M.  A.  N.,  viii.  388,  no.  137). 

*  Subsequent  to  the  general  confirmation  of  1131  (no.  11),  issued  apparently  on 
the  eve  of  the  king's  departure  for  England,  whence  he  returned  in  1 133. 

'  eiiam,  C.  '  So  MSS.  *  cessionem,  C.  '  MSS.  Sagio. 


3o8 


APPENDIX  P 


23 

1133-1135,  at  Falaise 

Grani  of  freedom  from  toll  to  the  nuns  of  ViUers-Canivet. 

A,  original,  torn  at  the  right,  formeriy  sealed  sur  simple  queue,  in 
Archives  of  the  CaK-ados,  no.  47-66;  B,  vidimus  of  G.,  bishop  of  Seez, 
in  the  same  fonds,  no.  48,  from  which  the  gaps  have  been  suppUed. 

H.  rex  Angl[orum]  iiastic[iis]  et  omnibus  vicfecomitibus]  at  ministris 
[tocius  Normannie]  et  portuum  maris  salutem.  Predpio  quod  totum  corre- 
dium  et  [omnes  res  sanctimon]iaIiuin  Sancte  Marie  de  \'flers  quas  homines 
earum  poterunt  [affidare  suas]  esse  dominicas  sint  quiete  de  thelon[eo]  et 
passag[io]  et  omni  [alia  consuetu]dine.  Et  nullus  eas  nec  homines  earum 
super  hoc  iniuste  [disturbet  super]  .x.  libras  forifacture.  Testibus  A.  episcopo 
Cariolii  et  R.  comdte  [Gloecestrie  et  R.  de  Ver],  apud  Falesiam. 


APPENDIX  G 


THE  NORMAN  ITINERARY  OF  HENRY  I,  1106-1135 

Of  the  twenty-nine  years  of  Henry  I's  reign  as  duke  more  than  half 
were  spent  in  Normandy,  so  that  the  history  of  these  Norman  so- 
journs constitutes  an  essential  part  of  the  general  history  of  his  rule  as 
well  as  a  not  inconsiderable  portion  of  the  annals  of  the  duchy.  In  the 
absence  of  any  connected  narrative  of  these  Norman  years,  a  founda- 
tion must  be  laid  by  constructing  a  detailed  itinerary,  such  as  Canon 
Eyton  prepared  for  Henry  11,  in  which  the  fragmentary  statements  of 
the  chroniclers  shall  be  supplemented  by  the  evidence  of  such  docu- 
ments as  can  be  dated  and  placed  with  sufficient  exactness.  Nothing 
definitive  of  this  sort  can  be  attempted  before  the  completion  of  this 
portion  of  Davis's  Regesta,  but  in  the  meantime  the  following  pro- 
visional itinerary  may  prove  of  service.  A  distinction  is  made  between 
such  events  and  documents  as  can  be  assigned  to  a  specific  date,  and 
those  which  can  be  assigned  only  to  a  given  year  or  a  particular  royal 
sojourn.  No  attempt  has  been  made  to  group  the  charters  which 
require  wider  Hmits:  many  of  Henry's  documents  can  never  be  dated 
with  any  degree  of  definiteness,  whUe  others  must  await  a  comprehen- 
sive collection  and  a  diplomatic  analysis  of  the  more  abundant  records 
on  the  EngUsh  side  of  the  Channel.^ 

I:  1106-1107 

1 106    28  September.   Battle  of  Tinchebrai.  5w/>ro,  Chapter  III,  note  6. 
Falaise.   Ordericus,  iv.  232. 
Rouen.   Ihid.,  iv.  233. 
ca.  15  October.       Lisieux.    Council.   Ibid.,  iv.  233. 

7  November.    Rouen.    Court.   Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  127. 

•  No  special  study  has  been  made  of  Henry's  charters.  See  the  notes  to  Warner 
and  Ellis,  Facsimiles  of  Royal  and  Other  Charters  in  the  British  Museum,  i;  many 
scattered  observations  of  Round;  and  Birch's  paper  on  his  seals  in  the  Journal  oftlie 
British  Archaeological  Association,  xxix.  233-262  (1873).  The  best  study  of  his 
itinerary  is  that  of  Eyton,  British  Museum,  Add.  MS.  31937,  f.  122  ff.  See  also 
^.  F.,  xii.  934-937;  Andrew,  in  Numismatic  Chronicle  fourth  series,  i;  and  Ramsay, 
Foundations  of  England,  ii 

309 


3IO 


APPENDIX  G 


1 1 06  30  November. 
25  December. 

1107  January. 
March. 

1106-1107 


1 107  Before  14  April. 


RoxJEN.    Chapter  III,  note  14. 

In  Normandy.   Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle. 

Falaise.    Council.    Ordericus,  iv.  239(?),  269. 

LisiEtJX.    Coimcil.   Ihid.,  iv.  269. 

Rouen.    Charter  for  Bee:  Appendix  F,  no.  i. 

LiLLEBONNE.  Writs  concerning  York  issued  with 
Queen  Matilda  {Historians  of  York,  iii.  31;  Mon- 
asticon,  viii.  1179)  belong  to  this  year  if  this  (An- 
nales  MonasHci,  Winton,  ii.  42)  was  the  Queen's 
only  visit  to  Normandy. 

Rouen.  The  same  holds  true  of  a  charter  for 
Longueville:  Round,  Calendar,  no.  219. 

Departure,  reaching  Windsor  before  Easter  (Ead- 
mer,  p.  184;  Henry  of  Huntingdon,  p.  236;  A.  S. 
Chronicle). 


U:  1108-1109 

1108  July-August,      Arrival.  Eadmer,  p.  197;  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  134; 
probably  ca.  i  August.  A .  S.  Chronicle. 

25  December.    In  Normandy.   A.  S.  Chronicle. 

1 109  March.        Neaueles.    Meeting  with  Louis  VI:  Luchaire, 

Louis  VI,  no.  72. 

Rouen.  Letter  to  Anselm:  Epistolae  Anselmi,  bk. 
iv,  no.  93. 

25  April,  In  Normandy.   A.  S.  Chronicle. 

1108-H09  Argentan.     Charter   for  Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive: 

Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  156;  Neustria  Pia, 
p.  503;  DeUsle,  Cartulaire  normand,  no.  12 19. 

Caen.  Vernier,  no.  49;  Round,  no.  156. 
Rouen.  Charter  for  William  d'Aubigny:  Calendar 
of  Patent  Rolls,  1327-1330,  p.  20. 
No  place.   Letter  to  Anselm:  Eadmer,  p.  205. 
Sainte-Vaubourg.  Charter  for  Ramsey  {Chroni- 
con,  p.  215),  attested  by  Ranulf  as  chancellor  and 
addressed  to  Simon  I,  earl  of  Northampton,  which 
must  be  placed  in  this  year  if  Simon  died  before  iiii 
(see  Warner  and  Ellis,  Facsimiles,  i.  no.  26). 

1 109  ca.  I  June.  Departure.^    Florence  of  Worcester,  ii.  59;  cf. 

A.  S.  Chronicle. 


*  A  grant  of  30  June  made  with  Henry's  consent  to  La  Trinity  de  Caen  (MS. 
Fr.  n.  a.  20221,  end),  does  not  require  his  presence  in  Normandy  at  that  date. 


NORMAN  ITINERARY  OF  HENRY  I  3II 


iiii  August. 


1112     2  March. 


4  November. 


1 1 13    2-3  February. 
[11  February] 

23-28  February. 

Early  March. 
23-30  March. 

1-3  May. 


DI:  1111-1113 

Arrival.  A .  S.  Chronicle;  Calendar  of  Charter  Rolls, 
iii.  471,  no.  4  (charter  of  8  August  at  Waltham 
*  in  transitu  '). 

AvRANCHES.  Charter  confirming  the  foundation  of 
Savigny:  Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  in;  Auvry, 
Eistoire  de  la  congregation  de  Savigny,  i.  157-160 
(translation);  Round,  Calendar,  no.  792,  where  the 
date  is  incorrectly  given  as  7  March  11 13,  a  date 
inconsistent  with  the  clironological  elements  in  the 
charter,  save  the  regnal  years,  and  with  the  proba- 
bilities of  Henry's  itinerary.^  To  the  long  hst  of 
witnesses  given  by  Round  should  be  added  Nigel  d' 
Aubigny  and  '  Ricardus  sigilli  custos.'  Cf.  the  foun- 
dation charter  of  Ralph  of  Fougeres,  25  January 
II 12,  in  Martene  and  Durand,  Thesaurus,  i.  332; 
and  the  confirmation  of  Turgis  of  Avranches  wit- 
nessed by  Henry  in  the  cartulary  of  Savigny  in 
Archives  of  the  Manche,  f.  170V,  no.  657. 

BoNNEViLLE-suR-TouQUES.  Condemnation  of  Rob- 
ert of  Belleme:  Ordericus,  iv.  305. 

Varreville.  Grant  of  freedom  from  toll  to  Sa- 
vigny: M.  A.  N.,  XX.  256. 

No  place.  Approves  grant  by  Robert  of  Meulan 
to  Bee  of  the  manor  of  Chisenbury*  (co.  Wilts): 
Poree,  Bee,  i.  467. 

Saint-£vroul.  Ordericus,  iv.  301  f.,  v.  196;  Round, 
no.  624. 

Bec.  Confirms  and  seals  charter  of  Hugh  of  Gour- 
nayforBec:  Poree,  5ec,  i.  339.  (The  year  is  prob- 
ably incorrectly  given). 

Near  ALEN50N.  Meeting  with  Fulk  of  Anjou: 
Ordericus,  iv.  306,  v.  196. 

Rouen.  Ibid.,  iv.  302,  v.  196;  Round,  no.  624. 

Near  Gisors.  Interview  with  Loviis  VI:  Luchaire, 
Louis  VI,  no.  158. 

Belleme,  siege.   Ordericus,  iv.  308. 


*  Most  of  the  elements  of  date  can  be  reconciled  by  assuming  that  the  style 
is  that  of  Easter,  but  the  difficulties  of  the  king's  itinerary  would  still  stand  in 
the  way  of  11 13. 

*  '  Chilingueburia  super  Avram  '  in  MS.  Lat.  13905,  f.  2iv;  the  correct  form 
Chesingebery  in  Henry  II's  confirmation,  Delisle-Berger,  no.  433. 


12 


APPENDIX  G 


13        July-  Departure  (Florence,  ii.  66),  having  spent  Christ- 

mas, Easter,  and  Pentecost  in  Normandy  (^4.  S. 
Chronicle). 


IV:  H14-IH5 


14  21  September.  Arrival,  via  Portsmouth.  A.  S.  Chronicle;  cf.  char- 
ter given  13  September  at  Westboume  {Calendar  of 
Charter  Rolls,  iii.  346,  iv.  170;  Monasticon,  ii.  444). 

25  December.  Roxjen.  Court  at  which  barons  swear  allegiance  to 
Prince  William.  A.  S.  Chronicle;  Henry  of  Hunt- 
ingdon, p.  239;  charter  for  Tiron  in  Cartidaire,  ed. 
Merlet,  i.  27;  Round,  no.  994. 

(year  only)  No  place.  Charter  of  confirmation  for  Saint-Georges 
de  Bocherville:  Round,  no.  196  (also  in  vidimus  in 
Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure  and  Archives 
Nationales,  JJ.  64,  no.  667). 


IS 


Mid-July. 


No  place.  Consents  to  grant  of  Stephen  of  Aumale 
for  Aumale:  Monasticon,  vii.  1103  (original  in 
Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure). 

Departure.  Florence,  ii.  68;  A.  S.  Chronicle.  (The 
king  was  at  Westminster  18  September:  Calendar 
of  Patent  Rolls,  1358-1361,  p.  7.) 


V:  1116-1120 

16  Just  after  2  April.  Arrival.   A.  S.  Chronicle;  Henry  of  Himtingdon, 

p.  239;  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  150;  cf.  Eadmer, 
P-  237- 

1 7  No  place.  Confirms  grant  to  Bee  by  William  Malet 
of  MenU-Josselin  (Eure):  MS.  Lat.  12884,  f.  165; 
MS.  Lat.  13905,  f.  2iv;  Poree,  Bee,  i.  334. 

18  July-August.     Saint-Clair-sur-Epte,  Malassis.    Ordericus,  iL 

453,  iv.  311. 

AxENgoN  and  vicinity.  War  with  Angevins;  cession 
of  territory  to  Thibaud  of  Blois.  Ihid.,  iv.  323  f. 

Early  September.  Siege  of  Laigle.   Ibid.,  iv.  325-327. 

September.    Rouen.   Ibid.,  iv.  327;  cf.  316. 

"  Campaign  against  La  Ferte-en-Brai  and  Neup- 

BOURG.   Ibid.,  iv.  327  f. 

7  October.       Council  of  Rouen.   Ibid.,  iv.  329  f. 

October.       Rouen.  Settlement  of  dispute  between  Savigny  and 
Saint-£tienne:  Appendix  F,  no.  2. 


NORMAN  ITINERARY  OF  HENRY  I  313 


1 1 18  October. 


10-16  November. 
December. 

1119  16-22  February. 

After  18  May. 
June. 

u 

(probably) 

Summer. 
« 

20  August. 


September. 
October. 


Between  22  and 
27  November. 

25  December, 
(year  only) 
1117-1119 


Arganchy.  Charter  approving  this  settlement: 
ibid. 

Caen.  Grant  to  Saint-£tienne  by  William  d'Au- 
bigny  in  presence  of  Henry  and  his  barons  at  the 
castle:  Deville,  Analyse,  p.  47;  '  Emptiones 
Eudonis,'  Chapter  III,  no.  5. 

Siege  of  Laigle.   Ordericus,  iv,  331. 

Siege  of  Alen^on.  Ibid.,  iv.  333;  Chroniques  des 

comtes  d'Anjou,  ed.  Halphen  and  Poupardin,  pp. 

155-161. 

Breteuil,   Falaise,   Chateau  de  Renouard. 

Ordericus,  iv.  337-339- 

La  Ferte-Fresnel.   Ibid.,  iv.  345. 

LisiEUx.  Court;  betrothal  of  Prince  William.  Ibid., 
iv.  347  f.;  cf.  A.  S.  Chronicle. 
RoxiEN.   Charter  for  Colchester:   Cartulariutn  S. 
lohannis  BapHste  de  Colecestria,  p.  10. 

Rouen.  Charter  for  Colchester:  ibid.,  pp.  4-10;  cf. 
Round,  in  E.  H.  R.,  xvi.  723 ;  Geofrey  de  Mandeville, 
pp.  423-427- 

Pont-Saint-Pierre.   Ordericus,  iv,  348. 
fivREUX,  siege  and  burning.    Ibid.,  iv.  350-352. 

Battle  of  Bremule.  Ibid.,  iv.  354-363;  Luchaire, 

Louis  VI,  no.  259. 

Breteuil.    Ordericus,  iv.  367  f. 

Glos,  Lire.   Ibid.,  iv.  371. 

Rouen.  Ibid. 

Siege  of  Evreioc.   Ibid.,  iv.  393. 

ViEux-RouEN.   Ibid.,  iv.  395. 

Instructions  to  bishops  going  to  council  of  Rheims. 
Ibid.,  iv.  373. 

GisORS.  Interview  with  Calixtus  II.  Historians  of 
York,  ii.  168  ff.;  Jaffe-Lowenfeld,  nos.  6788-6789; 
Eadmer,  p.  258;  Henry  of  Huntingdon,  p.  242. 

Bayeux.    Charter  for  Savigny:  Round,  no.  793. 

RotTEN.    Charter  for  Bee:  Appendix  F,  no.  3. 

Rouen.  Charter  for  Bee:  ^  MS.  Lat.  12884,  f-  167; 
Neustria  Pia,  p.  484. 


'  The  date  of  this  and  the  three  following  documents  is  fixed  by  the  attestation  of 
Archbishop  Ralph  of  Canterbury,  who  spent  these  three  years  in  Normandy, 
leaving  4  January  1120:  Ordericus,  iv.  430;  Florence  of  Worcester,  ii.  74. 


314 

1117-1119 

iiig 
1120 

Lent. 

30  May. 
Before  June. 

October. 

1116-1120 

II 16-1 I 20, 

probably  11 20 

1119-1120 

1120    21  November. 
25  November. 


APPENDIX  G 

Rouen.  Agreement  in  his  presence  between  Saint- 
Wandrille  and  Cerisy:  Lot,  S.-Wandrille,  no.  60. 

Rouen.  Writ  for  Saint-Amand:  Appendix  F,  no.  4. 

RotJEN.  Charter  for  Saint  Albans:  Matthew  Paris, 
Chronica  Majora,  vi.  39. 

No  day  or  place  given.  Meeting  with  Louis  VT  and 
homage  of  Prince  William.  Luchaire,  Louis  VI, 
no.  298;  Lot,  Fideles  ou  vassaux?,  p.  202. 

Arganchy.  Charter  for  Colchester:  Cartidarium, 
i.  42;  of.  E.H.R.,  xvi.  728. 

Caen.  Charters  for  Colchester,  probably  about  the 
same  time:  Cartidarium,  i.  21,  23. 

Vernon  (  ?  '  apud  Vercionem  ').  Interview  with  the 
papal  legate  Conon.  Historians  of  York,  ii.  186  f. 

Rouen.  Letter  to  Archbishop  Ralph  on  behalf  of 
Eadmer:  Eadmer,  p.  281. 

GisORS.  Second  interview  with  Conon.  Historians 
of  York,  ii.  189;  for  the  date  cf.  Mansi,  Concilia, 
xxi.  259. 

MoRTAiN.  Charter  for  Tiron:  Cartulaire,  ed.  Mer- 
let,  i.  42;  Round,  no.  995. 

Sainte-Vaubourg.  Charter  for  Tiron:  Cartulaire, 
i.  41 ;  Roimd,  no.  996. 

Rouen.  Charter  for  Nostell:  W.  Farrers,  Early 
Yorkshire  Charters,  no.  1433. 

Bonneville.  Charter  for  Nostell:  ibid.,  no.  1424. 

Rouen.  Writ  for  Archbishop  Thurstan  of  York: 
ibid.,  no.  1822. 

Bareleur.  Charter  for  Cerisy:  Neustria  Pia,  p. 
432;  Monasticon,  vii.  1075;  Farcy,  Abbayes  du 
diocese  de  Bayeux,  pp.  86,  89;  Toustain  de  Billy, 
Eistaire  du  diocese  de  Coutances,  i.  166;  cf.  Revue 
catholique  de  Nortnandie,  x.  441;  M.  A.  N.,  xxiii, 
part  I,  no.  1474. 

Barfleur.  Departure;  loss  of  White  Ship.  Orderi- 
cus,  iv.  411-419;  A.S.  Chronicle;  Henry  of  Hunt- 
ingdon, p.  242;  William  of  Malmesbury,  Gesta 
Regum,  ii.  496;  John  of  Worcester,  ed.  Weaver,. 
P-  IS. 


NORMAN  ITINERARY  OF  HENRY  I  3 1 5 


1123    II  June. 


June  or  July. 

October. 
October,  November. 


1124 


36  March. 
After  6  April. 

16  April. 


18  May-i  June, 
(year  only) 


1125 


a  <i 
a  u 


1 1 26   21  March, 
(year  only) 


VI:  1123-1126 

Arrival,  from  Portsmouth.  Simeon  of  Durham,  ii. 
273;  A.  S.  Chronicle;  Florence,  ii.  78;  John  of  Wor- 
cester, p.  17;  cf.  Henry  of  Huntingdon,  p.  245; 
Annates  Monastici,  i.  11;  Round,  .4 naen/  Charters, 
no.  10;  id.,  Geofrey  de  Mandeville,  p.  432  f. 

Confers  with  archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York 
on  their  return  from  Rome.   Florence,  ii.  78. 
Rouen.   Ordericus,  iv.  442. 
MoNTFORT,   Brionne,    Pontaudemer,  Gisors. 
Campaign  against  Hugh  de  Montfort,  Galeran  de 
Meulan,  etc.    Ordericus,  iv.  443-453;  Robert  of 
Torigni,  i.  163;  Simeon  of  Durham,  ii.  274. 
Invasion  of  the  Vexin.  Suger,  Louis  le  Gros,  ed. 
Molinier,  p.  106. 

Caen.   Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  166. 

Rouen.   Court;  condemnation  of  those  taken  at 

battle  of  Bourgtheroude.    Ordericus,  iv.  459-463. 

Bec.  Vita  WUlelmi  tertii  abbatis,  Migne,  Patrologia, 
cl.  722. 

Brionne,  Sainte-Vaubourg.   Poree,  Bec,  i.  287. 
Rouen.   Ibid.,  i.  288. 

fivREUX.  Charter  for  Savigny:  Appendix  F,  no.  6. 
Rouen.  Charter  for  Athelney:  Cartulary  (Somer- 
set Record  Society),  p.  133. 

Noplace.  Charter  for  Bec :  Poree,        i.  657. 
No  place.    Charter  for  Reading,  with  many  wit- 
nesses: Monasticon,  iv.  40;  J.  B.  Hurry,  Reading 
Abbey,  p.  151. 

Seez.  Dedication  of  cathedral.  Ordericus,  iv.  471. 

Sainte-Vaubourg.  Decision  of  controversy  be- 
tween John,  bishop  of  Seez,  and  Marmoutier:  early 
copy  in  Archives  of  the  Orne,  H.  2159;  M.A.N., 
XV.  197;  Roimd,  no.  1191;  Barret,  Cartulaire  de 
Marmoutier  pour  le  Perche,  no.  23. 

Noplace.  General  confirmation  for  Lessay:  original 
in  Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  4607;  Round,  no. 
923.  From  the  names  of  the  witnesses,  the  confirma- 
tion of  a  charter  of  Reginald  d'Orval  for  Lessay 
probably  belongs  to  the  same  time  and  place: 
original  in  Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  6449; 
printed  in  Inventaire  somtnaire;  Round,  no,  924. 


3i6 


APPENDIX  G 


II23-II26( ?) 


1125-1126  (probably) 


1 1 26   II  September. 


No  place.  Privilege  for  Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive: 
original  in  Archives  of  the  Calvados;  Gallia  Chris- 
tiana, xi.  instr.  157. 

Rouen.  Charter  for  Hyde  Abbey:  Monaslicon,  ii. 
445  (cf.  the  witnesses  to  the  charter  for  Reading, 
ibid.,  iv.  41). 

Departure.  Simeon  of  Durham,  ii.  281  (as  of  11 27); 
cf.  A.  S.  Chronicle;  Henry  of  Himtingdon,  p.  247; 
William  of  Malmesbury,  Historic  Novella,  p.  528. 


Vn:  1127-1129 

1 127  26  August.        Arrival,  via  Eling.  Simeon  of  Durham,  ii.  282  (as 

of  1 1 28) ;  cf .  Henry  of  Huntingdon,  p.  247 ;  Roimd, 
Feudal  England,  p.  268  f. 

(probably)     Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive.  Charter  for  Ely:  Monas- 
licon, ii.  617;  cf.  Roimd,  op.  cit.,  p.  269. 

(?)  No  place.  Charter  for  Aunay:  Appendix  F,  no.  8. 

11 28  10  June.  Rouen.   Kjiighting  of  Geoffrey  Plantagenet.  On 

the  year  see  Norgate,  Angevin  Kings,  i.  258-260; 
Chroniques  des  comtes  d'Anjou,  ed.  Halphen  and 
Poupardin,  pp.  178-180. 

17  June.  Le  Mans.  Marriage  of  Geoffrey  and  Matilda.  See 

the  authors  just  cited. 

Before  the  end  £pernon.  Invasion  of  the  Mantois.  Henry  of 
of  July.  Huntingdon,  p.  247;  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  175;  cf. 

Luchaire,  Louis  VI,  no.  414. 

October.       Rouen.    Coimcil.   Ordericus,  iv.  495. 

November.  Rouen.  Uncertain  charter  for  Saint-fivroul: 
Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  instr.  204;  supra.  Chapter  I, 
pp.  11-14. 

(year  only)        Noplace.  Charter  for  Sainte-Barbe:  early  figured 
copy  in  Archives  of  the  Calvados. 

"       "  Seez.  Attests  charter  of  John,  bishop  of  Seez,  for 

Marmoutier.  Barret,  Cartulaire  de  Marmoutier 
pour  le  Perche,  no.  25;  Round,  no.  1192. 

1127-1128  Probably  in  Normandy.  Confirmation  of  charter  of 

Count  Stephen  for  Fumess  Abbey,  with  incon- 
sistent year,  indiction,  and  epact:  Monaslicon, 
v.  247. 

1 1 29  2  June.  Falaise.  Whitsuntide  court.  Supra,  Chapter  HE, 

no.  3. 


NORMAN  ITINERARY  OF  HENRY  I  317 


1 1 29    (year  only)         Rouen.    Charters  for  Fontevrault:   Round,  nos. 
1052  f.,  1459. 

1 128-1 1 29  RoxiEN.  Grant  to  Miles  of  Gloucester  of  the  lands 

and  constableship  of  his  father:  original  in  British 
Museum,  Cotton  Charter  xvi.  33.  See  above,  p.  305. 

1129    15  July.  Departure.    Simeon  of  Durham,  ii.  283;    A.  S. 

Chronicle;  John  of  Worcester,  p.  29.  (Henry  was  in 
London  i  August:  Henry  of  Huntingdon,  p.  250.) 


Vni:  1130-1131 


1130  ca.  I  September.  Arrival,  from  Portsmouth.   Robert  of  Torigni,  i. 

182;  Pipe  Roll  31  Henry  I,  p.  125;  cf.  Henry  of 
Huntingdon,  p.  252  (Michaelmas);  A.  S.  Chronicle. 


8  September. 
14  September. 

after  14  September. 

"  (?) 


"31    13  January. 


5  February. 
February. 


Bec.    Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  182. 

Rouen.  Probably  present  at  consecration  of  Arch- 
bishop Hugh.    Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  183. 

Rouen.  Assents  to  charter  of  Archbishop  Hugh  for 
Aumale:  Archives  of  the  Oise,  H.  1302;  Gallia 
Christiana,  xi.  instr.  22. 

Rouen.  Charter  for  Ramsey:*  Warner  and  Ellis, 
Facsimiles,  i,  no.  11;  Ramsey  Cartulary,  i.  242; 
Chronicon,  p.  224. 

Rouen.  Charter  for  Notre-Dame-du-Desert:  Le 
Prevost,  Eure,  i.  251 ;  Gurney,  Record  of  the  House  oj 
Gournay,  ii.  739;  Round,  no.  411. 

Chartres.  Meeting  with  Innocent  II.  Ordericus, 
V.  25;  Round,  no.  1460;  cf.  Henry  of  Hunting- 
don, p.  252;  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  184;  William 
of  Malmesbury,  Historia  Novella,  p.  534;  Jaffe- 
Lowenfeld,  i.  846. 

Rouen.   Neuslria  Pia,  p.  387. 

Rouen.  Charter  for  Seez:  Appendix  F,  no.  10. 


•  The  appearance  together  in  this  charter  of  Archbishop  Hugh,  consecrated  14 
September  1130,  and  William  of  TancarviUe,  who  died  in  1129  {Histoire  litleraire, 
xxxii.  204),  raises  an  unsolved  problem,  unless  Hugh  was  already  designated  be- 
fore the  king's  departure  from  Normandy  in  11 29.  On  the  custom  of  prelates 
attesting  before  their  consecration  see  Eyton,  Add.  MS.  31937,  f.  148V;  Round, 
in  Victoria  History  of  Hampshire,!.  527.  A  charter  of  1133  is  dated  in  the  fourth 
year  of  Archbishop  Hugh:  Cartulaire  de  Tiron,  i.  205. 


3l8  APPENDIX  G 

1 13 1    9,  10  May.        Rouen.  Meeting  with  Innocent  11.  Jaffe-LSwen- 

feld,  nos.  7472  f.,  7476;  William  of  Malmesbury, 
Historia  Novella,  p.  534;  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  185; 
id.,  in  WiUiam  of  Jumieges,  ed.  Marx,  p.  309;  Of. 
Round,  Ancient  Charters,  p.  30. 

5  or  12  May.      Rouen.    Charter  for  Cluny:   Bruel,  Chartes  de 
Cluny,  V,  no.  4016;  Round,  Calendar,  nos.  1387  f. 

May  (113 1  ?)    Vernon.  Meeting  with  Count  Thibaud.  Ordericus, 
iii.  118  f. 

(year  only)     Vaudreuil.  Charter  for  fivreux  cathedral:  Round, 
no.  287. 

Siunmer.  Arques.  Charter  for  Beaumont-le-Roger:  vidimus 
in  Archives  of  the  Eure,  H.  814;  copy  in  cartulary  in 
BibHotheque  Mazarine,  MS.  3417;  Cartulaire,  ed. 
E.  Deville,  p.  7;  Round,  no.  373. 

■  Dieppe.  Charter  for  Seez:  Appendix  F,  no.  11;  cf. 

Ordericus,  iv.  471,  note  4. 

1130-1131  Arques.   Charter  for  the  cordwainers  of  Rouen: 

copies  in  MS.  Lat.  9067,  f.  154V;  MS.  Rouen  2192, 
f.  189;  La  Roque,  iii.  149;  Round,  no.  107. 

Arques.  Charter  for  Saint-Georges  de  Bocherville: 
Round,  no.  197. 

Dieppe.  Charter  for  Saint- Wandrille:  Lot,  5.- 
WandrUle,  no.  64;  Round,  no.  168. 

Caen.  Charter  for  Saint-£tienne:  Monasticon, 
vii.  1071. 

Caen  (  ?).  Charters  for  Saint-fitienne  and  con- 
firmation of  '  Emptiones  Eudonis  ' :  supra,  Chapter 
m,  no.  5. 

Rouen.  Charters  for  Fecamp:  Round,  nos.  122, 
123;  facsimile  of  no.  123  in  Chevreux  and  Vernier, 
Les  archives  de  Normandie,  no.  33. 

1130-1131  (  ?)  Rouen.  Charter  for  Salisbury  cathedral:  Register 

of  St.  Osmund,  i.  349. 


113X  August 


Departure,  from  Dieppe.  A.  S.  Chronicle;  Henry  of 
Himtingdon,  p.  252;  Robert  of  Torigni,  i.  185. 


NORMAN  ITINERARY  OF  HENRY  I 


IX:  1133-113S 

Arrival.  Annals  of  Rouen,  in  Labbe,  Bibliotheca,  i. 
368;  Annals  of  Canterbury,  in  Liebennann,  Anglo- 
normannische  Geschichtsquellen,  p.  79;  Robert  of 
Torigni,  i.  192;  John  of  Hexham,  ii.  285;  John  of 
Worcester,  p.  37.  William  of  Malmesbury,  p.  535, 
gives  5  August,  but  the  eclipse  was  on  the  2d. 

Rouen.  Charter  for  Bee:  Round,  no.  374;  Poree, 
Bee,  i.  460. 

MORTEMER.    H.  F.,  xiv.  510. 

RoxjEN.  Buth  of  Henry's  grandson  Geoffrey,  the 
king  being  probably  at  Rouen.  Robert  of  Torigni,  i. 
192;  cf.  Poree,  Bee,  i.  293  f.,  650. 

RotTEN.  Charter  for  Bee:  Poree,  i.  377-380,  658  f. 
(two  versions);  Roimd,  no.  375. 

Rouen.  Charter  for  Coutances  cathedral:  cartu- 
lary now  in  Archives  of  the  Manche  (cf .  Chapter  VI, 
note  95),  p.  348,  no.  284;  copy  in  MS.  Fr.  4900,  f.  5v; 
Dupont,  Histoire  du  Cotentin,  i.  472;  Round,  no. 
959- 

Makes  three  vain  attempts  to  cross  to  England. 
Ordericus,  v.  45. 

Caen.  Charter  for  Saint-Andre-en-Gouff em:  Round, 
no.  590. 

Rouen.  Ordinance  concerning  the  Truce  of  God: 
Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  ed.  Tardif,  c.  71;  Round, 
no.  290. 

August-i  November.  Seez,  Alencon,  Argentan,  etc.  Ordericus,  v.  47, 
63- 

No  place.  Confirms  grant  of  William  of  Warren  for 
Bellencombre:  Monasticon,  vii.  1113. 

No  place.  Renews  charter  of  1121-1131  for  Le 
Grand-Beaulieu  de  Chartres:  Cartulaire,  ed.  Merlet 
and  Jussehn,  no.  i;  supra,  Chapter  HI,  no.  17. 

1133-1135  Arganchy.  Writ  to  custodians  of  the  bishopric  of 

Bayeux:  Livre  noir,  no.  37.  No.  34  is  probably  of 
the  same  period. 

Caen.  Writ  for  Bayeux  cathedral:  ibid.,  no.  8 
(probably  during  the  same  vacancy). 


1 133     2  August. 


(year  only) 

1134   Shortly  after 
IS  April. 

3  June. 


(year  only) 


"35 


320  APPENDIX  G 

1133-1135  Fauuse.  Charter  for  Ramsey:  Cartulary,  i.  250; 

Chronicon,  p.  284. 

Falaise.  Charter  for  Villers-Canivet :  Appendix 
F,  no.  23. 

Rouen.  Charter  for  the  bishop  of  fivreux:  supra, 
Chapter  III,  no.  18;  Roxind,  no.  289. 

Rouen.  Charter  for  Lincoln:  E.  H.  R.,  xxiii.  726, 
no.  4;  Monasticon,  viii.  1275. 

Seez.  Charter  for  Seez  cathedral:  Appendix  F, 
no.  22. 

1 13  5    25  November.   Lions  castle.   Ordericus,  v.  49. 
I  December.    Lions.   Death.   Ibid.,  v.  50. 


APPENDIX  H 


DOCUMENTS  CONCERNING  NORMAN  COURTS,  1 139-1191 ' 

1 

1 139,  at  Lisieuz 

Notice  of  suit  before  John,  bishop  of  Lisieux,  between  Richard  and 
Anselm  of  Dives  and  the  abbey  of  Troarn  concerning  the  church  of  Dives 
(Calvados). 

A,  original  lost;  B,  copy  in  lost  cartvilary  of  Troarn;  C,  copy  from 
B  ('  in  veteri  cartario  folio  .xxix.  hec  repperi ')  in  Chartrier  rouge,  MS. 
Lat.  10086,  f.  IS9V. 

Anno  .M°.C.XXXIX.  defuncto  Herluino  presbitero  de  Diva  moverunt 
Ricardus  de  Diva  et  Anselmus  frater  eius  contencionem  de  ecclesia  de  Diva 
contra  nos.  Dicebant  enim  quandam  partem  eiusdem  ecclesie  esse  suam  et 
maxime  presentacionem  presbiteri.  Pro  qua  causa  iussu  lohannis  episcopi 
Lexoviensis  perrexerunt  in  curiam  Sancti  Petri  ante  ipsum  episcopum, 
scilicet  domnus  abbas  Andreas  et  monachi  eius  cum  eo  Rannulfus  ceUararius 
et  Radulfus  de  Waravilla  et  Rogerius  de  Sancto  Wandregisilo  et  Ricardus  de 
Diva  et  Anselmus  frater  eius.  Et  diraciocinati  sunt  idem  abbas  et  monachi 
eius  quod  tota  ecclesia  Sancte  Marie  de  Diva  sua  erat  et  presentacio  presbi- 
teri, per  testimonium  et  iudiciimi  predicti  episcopi  et  iudiciimi  qui  curiam 
tenebant  et  per  cartam  suam  quam  inde  habebant  firmatam  manu  Willelmi 
senioris  regis  et  Rogerii  de  Belmont  et  Roberti  filii  eius  et  manu  Hugonis 
episcopi  Lexoviensis  et  per  guarantores  suos  quos  ibi  habebant,  scilicet 
Rogerium  de  Spineto  et  filios  eius  et  Jordanum  de  SuUeio;  et  saisiti  redierunt 
a  curia  abbas  et  monachi  eius.  His  interfuenmt  Herveus  archidiaconus, 
Normannus  archidiaconus,  decanus,  Rogerius  de  Monasteriolo,  Hugo 
Teillardus,  Willelmus  de  Capella.* 

'  For  other  such  documents  see  M.  A.  N.,xv.  196  ff.;  Valin,  piSces  justificatives; 
and  the  texts  cited  supra,  Chapters  V  and  VI. 

*  Cf.  the  following  letter  of  Galeran  of  Meulan:  '  I.  reverendo  Dei  giatia  Lex- 
[oviensi]  episcopo  domino  suo  et  patri  G.  comes  Mellenti  salutem.  Precor  vos  quod 
Dei  amore  et  meo  teneatis  et  custodiatis  ecclesiam  Sancti  Martini  de  Troamo  et 
monachos  et  omnes  res  eorum  et  nominatim  ecclesiam  de  Diva  quam  antecessores 
mei  concesserunt  et  cum  Willelmo  rege  Anglorum  a  duce  Normannorum  confinna- 
verunt  predicte  ecclesie  et  monachis,  et  ut  [non]  permittatis  quod  Ricardus  de  Diva 
vel  Anselmus  faciat  eis  inde  aliquam  contumeliam  vel  [blank  in  MS.].  Teste  Ro- 
berto de  Novoburgo.'  Chartrier  rouge,  i.  152;  Chartrier  Uanc  in  Archives  of  the 
Calvados,  no.  366. 

321 


322 


APPENDIX  H 


2 

20  Janiiary  1148,  at  Lisieux 

Notification  by  Fulk,  dean  of  Lisieux,  thai  in  the  presence  of  Rotrou, 
bishop  of  £vreux,  then  administering  the  see  of  Lisieux,  a  piece  of  land  at 
Mesnil-Mauger  (Calvados)  has  been  recognized  as  alms  by  the  guardian 
of  the  honor  and  the  old  men  of  the  manor  and  restored  to  the  priory  of 
Sainte-Barbe. 

A,  original,  with  incisions  for  attachment  of  seal,  in  Archives  of  the 
Calvados,  fonds  Sainte-Barbe. 

Fulco  Sancti  Petri  Lexoviensis  ecclesi§  decanus  totusque  eiusdem  ecclesig 
conventus  dilectis  in  Christo  fratribus  Guillelmo  priori  de  Sancta  Barba 
totique  ipsius  ecclesig  conventm  salutem  et  fratemam  dilectionem.  Quia 
liberante  nos  Christo  non  sumus  ancill§  filii  sed  libera,  rerum  etiam  ecclesi- 
asticarum  libertati  quantum  possumus  decet  nos  providere,  quatinus  eas  et 
ab  illicita  possessione  laicorum  liberare  studeamus  et  ab  invasione  sacrilega 
premimire.  Terram  igitur  quam  Rannulfus  et  Turulfus  filius  eius  tota  vita 
sua  tenuisse  dicuntur  in  elemosina  apud  MaisnUmalger  tempore  Rad[ulfi] 
filii  Serlonis  et  heredum  eius  GuiUelmi  et  Gauf[redi]  et  sic,  in  presentia 
domini  Rotroci  Ebroicensis  episcopi  Lexoviensis  episcopatus  curam  nunc 
agentis,  per  Rog[erium]  de  Hotot  qui  time  honorem  et  heredem  de  Maisnil- 
malger  habebat  in  custodia  et  per  antiquos  homines  eiusdem  manerii  pro 
elemosina  recognitam,  et  per  manus  tam  ipsius  Rog[erii]  quam  Gauf[redi] 
filii  Theoderici  in  manum  prefati  Rot[roci]  episcopi  quibusdam  ex  nobis 
videntibus  et  audientibus  ut  elemosinam  redditam,  vobis  et  ecclesig  vestrg 
per  manus  ipsius  episcopi  datam  in  perpetuam  elemosinam,  assensu  et  beni- 
volentia  predictorum  Rog[erii]  et  Gauf[redi]  ceterorumque  qui  in  eorum 
erant  consilio,  protestamur.  Quandam  etiam  partem  elemosing  de  ecclesia 
Sancti  Stephani  de  MaisnHmalger  quam  predicti  Rannulfus  et  Turulfus 
et  post  eos  Guill[elmus]  Burgamissam  tenuerunt,  quam  Robertus  decanus 
habebat  in  custodia,  redditam  in  manu  eiusdem  episcopi  liberam  a  predictis 
Rog[erio]  et  Gauf[redo],  vobis  nichUominus  ab  ipso  episcopo  datam  et  in 
perpetuam  elemosinam  concessam  partim  vidimus  partim  audivimus. 

Huic  actioni  presentes  affuimus  ego  Fulco  decanus,  ex  archidiaconis  Nor- 
mannus  et  Robertus  de  Altaribus,  ex  canonicis  Rad[uKus]  de  Roreio,  Ro- 
gferius]  filius  Amisi,  lohannis  archidiaconi  vicarius,  GuiUelmus  archidiacfoni] 
Ricard[i]  filius,  Gislebertus  de  Furcis,  Turgisus,  et  alii  plures.  De  exteriori- 
bus  quoque  clericis,  Robertus  de  Hotot  decanus  qui  totius  predicti  negocii 
mediator  et  actor  fuit,  Rogerius  de  DotviUa  decanus,  GuUlelmus  de  Teber- 
villa,  et  Paganus  de  Grandvilla.  Predictam  igitur  pactionem  terrg  recognitg 
et  redditg  in  elemosinam  predictus  Rog[erius]  de  Hotot  afiidavit  in  manu 
episcopi  Rot[roci]  se  legitime  et  fideliter  servaturum  et  contra  omnes  qui 
vellent  adversari  toto  posse  suo  defensurmn.  Quod  totum  sicut  supra 
scriptimi  est  testificantes,  ex  precepto  etiam  domini  Ebroicensis  episcopi 
Rot[roci]  conscriptione  et  sigiUo  capituli  nostri  corroboramus,  ut  Domino 


DOCUMENTS  CONCERNING  THE  COURTS  323 


cooperante  et  sermonem  confirmante  ratum  et  indissolubile  maneat  in  per- 
petuum.  Amen.  Actum  Lexovii  in  festivitate  sanctorum  martirum  Fabiani 
et  Sebastiani  anno  incamationis  dominic§  M°.C°.XL°.VIII°. 

3 

1 154-1 158,  at  Caen 

Notification  by  Robert  de  Neufbourg,  seneschal  and  justiciar  of  Nor- 
mandy, thai  Robert,^  son  of  Ralph  of  Thaon,  had,  in  the  king's  court  at 
Caen,  restored  to  the  abbot  and  monks  of  Savigny  the  tithes  and  lands  at 
Thaon  (Calvados)  to  which  the  abbot  had  proved  his  right  before  the  king  at 
Domfront,  and  that  Robert  has  given  surety  for  the  observance  of  this. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  cartulary  of  Savigny,  in  Archives  of  the  Manche, 
no.  219. 

A.  E.  R.,  XX.  32,  note  56. 

Robertus  de  Novoburgo  sinescallus  Normannie  archiepiscopo  Rothoma- 
gensi  et  episcopis  Normannie  et  consulibus  et  baronibus  et  omnibus  fidelibus 
Henrici  regis  Anglie  salutem.  Notimi  vobis  fieri  volumus  quod  Robertus 
filius  Radulfi  de  Thaun  Cadomo  in  curia  regis  coram  me  qui  eram  iusticia 
Normannie  et  coram  baronibus  regis  Ricardo  abbati  et  monachis  Savigneii 
reddidit  in  pace  ac  dimisit  et  in  manu  abbatis  posuit  decimas  terre  eorum  de 
Thaun  et  quatuor  acras  terre,  quas  ipse  Robertus  et  fratres  eius  adversus 
abbatem  et  monachos  antea  calumniabantur  et  quas  ipse  abbas  et  monachi 
disrationaverunt  in  curia  regis  et  coram  ipso  ad  Danfront,  et  de  chatallis 
suis  misit  se  in  miseratione  abbatis  et  monachonun  pro  malefactis  que  ipse  et 
fratres  eius  fecerant  eis.  Et  pepigit  legitime  quod  faceret  si  posset  fratres 
suos  facere  et  tenere  eundem  finem  cum  abbate  et  monachis  quem  ipse  facie- 
bat,  et  si  non  posset  quod  legitime  se  teneret  cimi  abbate  et  monachis  contra 
fratres,  et  affidavit  in  manu  mea  et  iuravit  super  sancta  quod  ipse  hec  omnia 
que  hie  diximus  legitime  teneret  et  conservaret  abbati  et  monachis.  Et  hoc 
ipsum  affidavit  Vitalis  de  Sancto  Germano  et  Ricardus  de  Babainvilla  et  ahi 
amici  eius  quos  abbas  voluit.  Huius  finis  et  pacis  inter  Robertum  et  abbatem 
et  monachos  fuerunt  testes  Godart  de  Vaus  et  Robertus  de  Sancta  Honorina 
qui  erant  in  loco  episcopi  Luxoviarum  et  Willelmus  fihus  lohannis  et  Aitart 
Polcin  qui  erant  baiUivi  regis  et  Robertus  abbas  Fontaneti  et  Ricardus  filius 
comitis  Gloecestrie  et  lordanus  Taisson  et  Rualen  de  Sal  et  Johannes  de 
Guavrei  et  Willelmus  de  Vilers  et  Gaufredus  fihus  Mabile  et  Robertus  filius 
Bernardi  et  Rannulfus  Rufellus  et  Nicholaus  de  Veieves  et  Robertus  de 
ChemeUia  et  multi  alii. 

1  He  also  appears  in  a  suit  in  the  king's  court  under  Richard:  cartulary  of 
Savigny,  no.  220. 


324 


APPENDIX  H 


4 

I I 54-1 158 

Writ  of  Arnulf  of  Lisieux  and  Robert  de  Neufbourg  [the  king^s  principal 
justices],  ordering  William  Fitz  John  to  cause  the  friends  of  Robert  of 
Thaon  to  give  such  surety  as  Robert  had  given  in  the  preceding  document, 
and  directing  him  further  to  have  Robert's  brothers  proclaimed  in  the 
markets  of  Caen  and  Bayeux  as  under  the  king's  ban. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  cartulary  of  Savigny,  no.  273. 

A.  H.  R.,  XX.  33,  note  56. 

Emulfus  Dei  gratia  Liixoviensis  episcopus  etR.de  Novoburgo  Willelmo 
filio  lohannis  salutem.  Mandamus  tibi  atque  precipimus  ut  facias  amicos 
Roberti  de  Thaun  quos  abbas  Savigneii  tibi  nominaverit  facere  fiduciam 
eidem  abbati  et  monachis  ipsius  quam  ipse  Robertus  fecit  Cadomi  coram 
nobis,  et  ut  facias  fratres  Roberti  forisbanniri  in  communi  foro  Cadomi  et 
Baiocis  sicut  forisfactos  regis. 

5 

1154-1159 

Notification  by  Robert  de  Neufbourg,  seneschal  of  Normandy,  that 
Robert  Poisson  of  Foulbec  (Eure)  has  in  the  king's  court  and  before  the 
king's  barons  renounced  all  claim  to  the  church  of  £,paignes  {Eure)  in 
favor  of  the  monastery  of  Preaux,  and  has  received  from  the  abbot  the  fief  of 
Ralph  the  priest  subject  to  the  customs  which  a  vavassor  owes  his  lord. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  cartulary  of  Preaux  in  Archives  of  the  Eure, 
H.  711,  no.  78;  C,  copy  from  B  in  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1929,  no.  75.  Cf. 
Brunner,  Schwurgerichte,  p.  148,  note  i;  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  ii.  125. 

Notum  sit  tam  presentibus  quam  futuris  quoniam  in  curia  regis  cum  ego 
Robertus  de  Novoburgo  dapifer  essem  Normannie  Robertus  Piscis  de  Fule- 
becco  calumpniam  suam  de  ecclesia  de  Hispania  quietam  clamavit  ecclesie 
Sancti  Petri  Pratellensis  tempore  MichaeUs  abbatis.  Ipse  vero  abbas  pre- 
dict© Roberto  Pisci  feodum  quod  tenuit  Radulfus  sacerdos  in  Hispania  red- 
didit salvis  omnibus  consuetudinibus  quas  vavasor  compatriota  domino 
facere  debet.  Et  quoniam  hec  ante  meam  presentiam  in  regis  curia  et  ante 
regis  barones  factum  est,  sigilli  mei  munimento  ratum  fore  in  posterum  con- 
firmo.  Testibus  Laurentio  archidiacono,  WUlelmo  de  Ansgervilla,  Godardo  * 
de  Vallibus,  Roberto  filio  Hemerici,  Etardo  Pulcin,  Roberto  de  luvineio, 
Gaufredo  de  Novoburgo,  Henrico  de  Warewic,  Gisleberto  de  Hotot,  et  aliis. 


*  MS.  Godardus. 


DOCUMENTS  CONCERNING  THE  COURTS 


6 

1 1 54-1 1 64,  at  Rouen 

Notification  that  before  Rotrou,  bishop  of  £,vreux,  and  Richard  du  Horn- 
met,  constable,  as  justiciars,  the  presentation  of  Brttcourt  (Calvados)  was 
quitclaimed  to  Michael,  abbot  of  Preaux,  in  full  assize  at  Rouen. 

A,  original  lost;  B,  cartulary  of  Preaux,  in  the  Archives  of  the  Eure, 
H.  711,  no.  18;  C,  copy  from  B  in  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1929,  f.  gv. 

A.H.  R.,  XX.  33,  note  59. 

Notum  sit  tam  presentibus  quam  futuris  quoniam  cum  ego  R.  episcopus 
Ebroicensis  et  Ricardus  de  Hummeto  constabularius  regis  essemus  iusti- 
ciarii  regis,  Galfredus  de  Bruecourt  et  Gislebertus  de  Bruencourt  et  Robertus 
filius  Matildis  in  presentia  nostra  in  plena  assisia  apud  Rothomagum  cla- 
maverunt  quietam  imperpetuum  presentationem  ecclesie  de  Bruencourt 
Michaeli  abbati  et  ecclesie  Pratellensi,  de  qua  diu  controversia  inter  eos 
fuerat.  Testibus  Hugo  [sic]  de  Gomaio  et  Matheo  de  Gerardivilla  et  Nicho- 
laus  [sic]  de  StutevUla  et  G.  de  Vallibus  et  Roberto  de  Pessi  et  Gisleberto  de 
Vascoil  et  Roberto  de  luveneio. 

7 

1154-1175,  probably  ca.  1160,  at  Rouen 

Grant  by  the  dean,  Geoffrey,  and  the  chapter  of  Rouen  of  their  mill  at 
Maromme  (Seine-Inferieure)  to  the  hospital  of  Saint- Jacques,  made  in 
the  presence  of  the  king's  justices. 

A,  original,  injured,  in  Archives  Nationales,  S.  4889,  no.  6;  B, 
modern  copy,  ibid.,  from  which  the  missing  portions  of  the  original 
have  been  supplied. 

A .  E.R.,  XX.  35,  note  79.  Frequently  cited  by  Dehsle,  Henri  II,  who 
makes  the  slip  of  attributing  the  document  to  Geoffrey's  successor, 
Robert,  and  thus  placing  it  after  Geoffrey's  death  in  1175;  this  error 
vitiates  several  of  Delisle's  biographical  notes  (pp.  100,  377,  417,  422, 
449,  491). 

Gaufridus  Rothomagensis  gcclesig  decanus  et  tocius  eiusdem  ecclesig 
conventus  presentibus  et  futuris  salutem.  [Not]iun  esse  volumus  sancte  ma- 
tris  ecclesie  filiis  quod  m[oIendinu]m  nostrum  de  Marrona  concedimus 
domui  infirmorum  de  Rothomago  [in  ec]clesia  Sancti  lacobi  tenendum  in 
perpetuum  sicut  tenuerunt  iure  hereditario  Macharius  et  heredes  eius  a 
quibus  ipsum  emerunt  pro  .xv.  marcis  argenti,  salvo  ibi  censu  nostro  scilicet 
tribus  solidis  usualis  monete  singulis  annis  in  festo  Sancti  Remigii  reddendis. 
Hec  autem  em[ptio  publice]  celebrata  est  in  presentia  nostra  cui  interfuerunt 


326 


APPENDIX  H 


etiam  [iustitie  regis]  Rainaldus  de  Sancto  Walerico,  Godardiis  de  VaUibus, 
[Adam  de  W]annevilla,  Willelmus  de  Malapalude,^  Radulfus  filius  Urselini, 
Ro[celin  filius]  Clarembaldi,  Rainaldus  de  Sancto  Philiberto. 

8 

1160-1164,  at  Rouen 

Notification  of  a  decision  in  the  king's  court  at  Rouen,  before  Rotrou, 
bishop  of  £vreux,  and  Reginald  of  Saintr-Valery  as  justiciars,  adjudging 
to  Gilbert,  abbot  of  Conches,  rights  in  tlte  granary  of  Varengeville  {Seine- 
Inferieure) . 

A,  original  lost;  B,  cartulary  of  Conches  in  the  Archives  of  the 
Eure,  H.  262,  f.  loiv;  C,  copy  among  DeKsle's  papers  from  a  MS. 
relating  to  the  family  of  Chambray,  from  which  the  gaps  in  B  have 
been  filled  in. 

A.  H.  R.,  XX.  33,  note  59;  extract  in  DeUsle,  Henri  II,  p.  455. 

Rotrodus  Dei  gratia  Ebroisensis  episcopus  universis  sancte  matris  ecclesie 
filiis  salutem.  Notificamus  vobis  quod  Gilbertus  Sancti  Petri  CasteUionensis 
abbas  stramen  grangie  de  Warenge\Tlla  et  palleas  cum  revaneis  iudicio  cuiie 
domini  regis  obtLnuit  contra  Mathnde[m]  de  Monasteris  et  contra  Matheum 
filium  eius  disraciona\'it,  quoniam  monachos  prefate  ecclesie  inde  multum 
diu  placitis  et  altercationibus  indiscussis  vexaverant.  Hoc  autem  iudiciimi 
factum  est  apud  Rothomagum  in  monasterio  Sancti  Gervacii  me  presente, 
Reinnoldo  de  Sancto  Walerico  iusticia  in  curia  existente  plenissima  pluri- 
morum  v-irorum  qui  huius  rei  testes  fuerunt :  Amulphus  Luxoviensis  episco- 
pus, Frogerius  Sagiensis  episcopus,  Henricus  abbas  Fiscannensis,  Hugo  de 
Gumaio,  Godardus  de  VaUibus,  Robertus  de  Freschenes,  Adam  de  Martine- 
vUla,  Goselinus  Rossel,  Robertus  Harenc  de  Waldevilla,  Rogerius  Mahiel, 
et  alii  multi. 

9 

I I 64-1 178 

Letter  of  William  de  la  Settle  ^  to  Rotrou,  archbishop  of  Rouen,  asking 
him  to  do  justice  to  the  monks  of  Aunay  in  their  appeal  from  Richard, 
bishop  of  Coutances,  with  respect  to  the  champart  of  Saint-Mariin-de~ 
Bon-Fosse  (Manche),  and  referring  to  a  recent  decision  of  the  king 
concerning  the  division  of  the  champart. 

1  William  de  Malpalu  also  appears  as  justice  in  a  document  of  Richard  Talbot  for 
Mont-aux-Malades  (Archives  of  the  Seine-Inf erieure) ,  where  an  agreement  is  sworn 
to  '  coram  WiUelmo  de  !Mala  Palude  tunc  regis  iusticiario.' 

1  On  William  de  la  Seule,  see  DeUsle-Berger,  i.  27S,  301,  ii.  365;  Deville,  Analyse, 
p.  25;  H.  F.,  xsdii.  696. 


DOCUMENTS  CONCERNING  THE  COURTS  327 


A,  original  in  Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  3. 
A.  H.  R.,  XX.  27,  note  13. 

Reverentissimo  patri  suo  et  domino  carissimo  R.  Rothomagensi  archiepis- 
copo  et  omnibus  hoc  audientibus  et  recte  iudicantibus  Willehnus  de  Sola 
salutem.  Testimonium  cuiusdam  donationis  quam  feci  monachis  de  Ahieto 
vobis  per  litteras  meas  significare  curavi.  Habebam  quondam  in  manu  mea  et 
adhuc  habere  poteram  si  voluissem  duas  garbas  decime  in  parrochia  de  Bono 
Fosseio,  ex  quibus  unam  dedi  monachis  et  aham  ecclesig  eiusdem  ville,  per- 
sona vero  ecclesie  suam  terciam  garbam  habuit  sibi  in  pace  et  habet.  Verum 
tunc  temporis  tahs  erat  consuetudo  circa  nos  quod  tercia  tantum  garba  red- 
debatur  persone,  de  ilhs  scilicet  terris  que  pro  campardo  tradebantur,  due 
vero  cum  eodem  campardo  tenebantur,  que  nunc  Deo  donante  et  domino 
rege  nostro  iudicante  ubique  in  territoriis  nostris  redduntur,  quas  monachi  et 
gcclesia  in  suam  partem  volunt  habere.  Quod  quidem  rectissimum  videtur 
sed  persona  contradicit  ill[is].  Quam  contentionem  declarandam  domino 
Ricardo  Constantiensi  episcopo  commiseram  et  non  semel  aut  secimdo  me 
donationem  attestante  coram  ipso  indicium  distnlit  facere.  Qua  de  causa 
monachi  in  eius  curia  aggravati  cum  Gaufrido  milite  persona  vestram  appel- 
laverunt  presentiam.  Unde  obnixe  vestram  deprecor  auctoritatem  quatinus 
vos  pro  Deo  quod  unicuique  pertinet,  et  persone  et  monachis  et  ecclesie,  recta 
consideratione  restituatis.  Valete. 

10 

1 176-1 1 78,  at  Montfort 

Notification  by  William  de  la  Mare  of  an  agreement  between  Robert 
Neveu  of  Trouville  and  Gilbert  of  Yainville  made  before  him  and  the  other 
justices  of  the  king  after  judgment  rendered  at  an  assize  at  Montfort} 

A,  original,  formerly  sealed  sur  simple  queue,  in  Archives  of  the  Seine- 
Inferieure,  fonds  Jumieges;  B,  copy  thence  by  Dehsle  among  his 
papers  in  MSS.  Fr,  Printed,  with  serious  errors  and  omissions,  by 
Valin,  p.  271,  no.  xviii  (cf.  p.  114);  now  in  Vernier,  no.  115. 

Ego  Willelmus  de  Mara  presentibus  omnibus  et  futuris  notam  facio  con- 
cordiam  que  facta  est  inter  Robertum  Nepotem  de  Turo villa  et  Gislebertum 
de  Eudonis  viUa  in  assisia  de  Montfort  coram  iusticiis  regis,  me  scilicet  vice- 
comite  Sancte  Marig  Ecclesig  et  Willelmo  Maleth  constabulario  de  Ponte 
Abdomari  et  Hugone  de  Creissi  constabulario  Rothomagi  et  Seherio  de 
Quenci  constabulario  de  Nonantcort  et  Alvredo  de  Sancto  [Martino]  con- 
stabulario de  Drincort,  et  quibusdam  aliis.  Robertus  siquidem  movebat 
calumpniam  contra  Gislebertum  de  hereditagio  suo  de  Turovilla,  scilicet  de 
hospite  suo  Willelmo  Cave  et  de  terra  quam  habet  apud  maram  de  Becco  et 
iuxta  domum  Morini  Planchun.  Sed  quoniam  in  eadem  assisia  coram  predic- 

*  For  the  justices  mentioned  in  this  document  see  the  biographical  notices  in 
Delisle,  Henri  II;  and  the  list  of  assizes,  infra,  Appendix  J. 


328 


APPENDIX  H 


tis  iusticiis  recordatum  est  et  recognitum  hoc  esse  rectum  hereditagium 
Gisleberti,  pro  concordia  et  pace  ab  utrisque  partibus  definitum  est  ita, 
Roberto  et  Gisleberto  consencientibus  et  iusticiis  confirmantibus:  Gisle- 
bertus  hominium  fecit  Roberto  et  singulis  annis  ad  festum  Sancti  Michaelis 
dabit  ei  duodecim  denarios  publice  monete  ut  sit  inter  eos  indicium  et  agmen- 
tum  firmissime  pacis,  nichilque  amplius  faciet  ei;  et  ita  hoc  modo  Gislebertus 
de  ista  querela  finivit  in  assisia  de  Montfort,  in  curia  domini  regis  coram  pre- 
dictis  iusticiis  eius.  Presentibus  his  testibus:  Rogerio  CeUarario,  Falche- 
ranno  monacho,  Roberto  Pychart,  Radulfo  Maisnerio,  Rogero  Fiholo, 
Roberto  Clarel,  Roberto  de  Leuga,  Roberto  Belfit,  Hermanno  Anghco, 
Matheo  Marescal,  Hugone  de  ContevUla,  et  ahis  pluribus.  Quo  tempore 
Ricardus  Wintoniensis  episcopus  in  Normannia  post  regem  iudex  erat  et 
maior  iusticia. 

11 

1189-1191,1  at  Caen 

Grant  by  William  de  Moult  to  the  nuns  of  Almeneches  of  a  rent  of 
twenty-five  sous  Angevin  in  Moult  (Calvados)  and  all  claim  to  the  tithe  of 
Ingouville  {Calvados),  done  at  the  Eocchequer  at  Caen  before  William  Fitz 
Ralph,  seneschal  of  Normandy. 

A,  original,  formerly  sealed,  in  Archives  of  the  Ome,  H.  3916.  Cf. 
A.  E.  R.,  XX.  282,  note  28. 

Omnibus  ad  quos  presens  scriptum  pervenerit  Willehnus  de  Mool  miles 
salutem.  Noscat  universitas  vestra  quod  ego  WUlelmus  intuitu  caritatis  et 
antecessorum  meorum  remedio  ecclesie  Sancte  Marie  de  Almanesches  et 
monialibus  ibidem  Deo  servientibus  dedi  et  concessi  .xxv.  solidatas  Ande- 
gavensivim  monete  in  feodo  meo  laicali  apud  Mool  assignatas,  scilicet:  in 
WiUelmo  filio  Leiardi  viii.  solidos  et  ii.  gaUinas,  in  Gauchero  Escorchechine 
.iii.  solidos,  in  Ricardo  Musel  .xii.  denarios,  in  Serlone  Buffei  .ii.  sextarios 
avene  ad  magnam  mensuram  de  Argentiis  et  .iii.  panes  et  .iii.  gaUinas  et 
.XXX.  ova,  in  Hugone  filio  WiUehni  .xii.  denarios;  prefatis  monialibus  in 
puram  et  perpetuam  elemosinam  libere  et  pacifice  possidendas.  Preterea 
omni  iuri  quod  Simon  filius  meus  persona  ecclesie  de  Mool  super  duabus 
garbis  decime  de  feodo  sanctimonialium  vendicabat  apud  IngulfreviUam 
penitus  renunciavit.  Et  ut  hoc  rescriptum  perpetue  firmitatis  robur  futuris 
temporibus  optineat  nec  aliqua  possit  oblivione  deleri,  pro  me  et  Simone 
filio  meo  sigiUi  mei  munimine  roboravi.  Actiun  est  hoc  apud  Cadomimi 
ad  scacarium  coram  WiUelmo  fiMo  Radulfi  tunc  Normannie  senescaUo, 
testibus  his:  AnschetiUo  de  Arre,  Radulfo  de  Lexoviis,  Daniele,  magistro 
Gairfredo  de  Cortone,  clericis  de  scacario,  R.  abbate  Sancti  Andree  de 
Gofer,  Ricardo  Haitie,  Turofredo  de  Cyemi,  WiUelmo  fiho  comitis  lohannis, 
Henrico  de  Mool,  Radulfo  de  Rupetra,  Ricardo  de  Argenciis,  Radulfo 
Martel,  et  aliis  pluribus. 

*  Robert  became  abbot  of  Saint-Andie-en-Gouffem  ca,  1189;  William  succeeded 
his  father  John  as  count  of  Ponthieu  in  iigi. 


APPENDIX  I 


THE  EARLY  LEGISLATION  OF  HENRY  H 

The  record  of  Henry  II's  legislation  is  lamentably  incomplete.  The 
chief  reason  is  doubtless  that  indicated  by  Maitland,  *  the  administra- 
tive character  of  his  reforms,'  embodied  usually  in  instructions  to  his 
justices  and  quickly  absorbed  *  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  traditional 
common  law  ' ; '  but  the  result  is  none  the  less  fatal  for  the  study  of 
constitutional  and  legal  development.  We  know  nothing,  for  example, 
of  the  estabhshment  of  the  grand  assize,  even  its  date  must  be  re- 
covered by  inference;  ^  while  no  formulation  of  law  has  reached  us 
anterior  to  the  Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  and  no  formal  ordinance 
anterior  to  1166.  The  recovery  of  any  texts  for  these  early  years  is  per- 
haps a  vain  hope,  but  it  is  none  the  less  important  to  search  out  all 
traces  of  legislative  activity  on  both  sides  of  the  Channel,  even  if  its 
formal  expression  still  escapes  us. 

The  fullest  report  of  any  early  legislation  is  given  by  the  Bee  annalist 
in  1159:^ 

Rex  Anglorum  Henricus  ad  Natale  Domini  fuit  apud  Falesiam,  et  leges 
instituit  ut  nullus  decanus  aliquam  personam  accusaret  sine  testimonio 
vicinorum  circummanentium  qui  bone  vita  fama  laudabiles  haberentur.  De 
causis  similiter  quorumlibet  ventilandis  instituit  ut,  cum  iudices  singularum 
provinciarum  singulis  mensibus  ad  minus  simul  devenirent,  sine  testimonio 
vicinorum  nichil  iudicarent,  iniuriam  nemini  facere,  preiudicium  non  irro- 
gare,  pacem  tenere,  latrones  convictos  statim  punire,  quemque  sua  quiete 
tenere,  ecclesias  sua  iura  possidere. 

This  account  reads  like  a  rapid  summary,  by  headings,  of  the  ordi- 
nance, and  could  hardly  have  been  written  in  this  form  without  some 
reference  to  the  act  itself.  Its  chief  importance,  as  has  already  been 
indicated,*  consists  in  its  requirement  of  the  accusing  jury,  which  here 
makes  its  first  appearance  under  the  Anglo-Norman  kings.  Especially 
noteworthy  is  the  evident  connection  between  the  first  provision  of 
this  ordinance  and  §  6  of  the  Constitutions  of  Clarendon: 

1  PoUock  and  Maitland,  i.  136.  *  See  Round,  E.  H.  R.,  xxxi.  268. 

'  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  180. 

*  Supra,  Chapter  VI.  Cf.  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History,  i.  497;  Pollock  and 
Maitland,  i.  151. 

329 


330 


APPENDIX  I 


Laici  non  debent  accusari  nisi  per  certos  et  legales  accusatores  et  testes  in 
presentia  episcopi,  ita  quod  archidiaconus  non  perdat  ius  suum  nec  quicquam 
quod  inde  habere  debeat.  Et  si  tales  fuerint  qui  culpantur,  quod  non  velit 
vel  non  audeat  aliquis  eos  accusare,  vicecomes  requisitus  ab  episcopo  faciet 
iurare  duodecim  legales  homines  de  visneto  seu  de  villa,  coram  episcopo, 
quod  inde  veritatem  secimdum  conscientiam  suam  manifestabunt.* 

It  is  true  that  only  the  court  of  the  archdeacon  is  here  mentioned, 
while  the  ordinance  of  Falaise  speaks  only  of  deans;  but  the  cases 
which  have  reached  us  show  both  dignitaries  associated  in  the  abuses 
of  which  the  king  complains,®  and  in  the  Inquest  of  Sheriffs  (1170)  he 
groups  them  together  without  distinction."  The  subject  was  not  new 
in  1 164  nor,  as  we  shall  see,  in  11 59. 

The  exactions  of  the  archdeacon's  jurisdiction  were  one  of  the  serious 
abuses  of  the  twelfth  century.  Appointed  usually  when  very  young 
and  by  family  interest,  learning  their  law  in  the  schools  of  Paris  or 
Bologna,  laymen  often  in  all  but  name,  the  EngHsh  archdeacons  of  the 
period  were  notorious  for  their  cupidity  and  extortion.*  Men  even  dis- 
cussed whether  they  could  be  saved  —  an  possit  archidiaconus  salvus 
esse.^  Archbishop  Theobald,  one  of  their  patrons,  had  twinges  of  con- 
science respecting  their  exactions  and  seems  to  have  instituted  a  check 
upon  them  in  his  diocese  by  the  appointment  of  John  of  Salisbury  as 
his  secretary,'"  in  whose  correspondence  may  be  foimd  many  instances 
of  their  misdeeds  in  the  early  years  of  Henry  II.''  It  is  not  surprising 
that  the  sixth  section  of  the  Constitutions  of  Clarendon  was  one  of 
those  *  tolerated  '  by  Alexander  III,'^  who  was  subsequently  informed 
that  the  archdeacons  of  the  diocese  of  Coventry,  among  other  things, 

'  Stubbs-Davis,  Select  Charters,  p.  165. 

'  See  the  cases  from  Scarborough  and  London  mentioned  below,  and  Gilbert 
Foliot,  Ep.  24.  Cf.  also  c.  7  of  the  council  of  Tours  of  1163  (Mansi,  xxi.  1178), 
which  shows  that  the  archdeacon's  jurisdiction  was  often  sublet  to  rural  deans.  For 
the  jurisdiction  of  a  Norman  dean  in  criminal  matters  see  Barret,  Cartulaire  de 
Marmoutier  pour  le  Perche,  no.  18  (1092-1100);  for  Maine,  Celier,  Catalogue  des 
actes  des  eveques  du  Mans,  nos.  81,  266,  267. 

'  '  Et  similiter  inquiratur  per  omnes  episcopatus  quid  et  quantum  et  qua  de 
causa  archidiaconi  vel  decani  iniuste  et  sine  iudicio  ceperint,  et  hoc  totum  scribatur  ': 
c.  12,  Stubbs-Davis,  p.  177. 

*  Stubbs,  Seventeen  Lectures  on  the  Study  of  Mediaeval  and  Modern  History 
(1900),  pp.  152  f.,  160,  347-349;  id.,  introduction  to  Ralph  of  Diceto,  i,  p.  xxvi  f.; 
L.  B.  Radford,  Thomas  of  London  (Cambridge,  1894),  p.  163  f. 

9  Cf.  John  of  SaUsbury,  Ep.  166. 

Id.,  Ep.  49;  Stubbs,  Lectures,  p.  347  f. 

"  John  of  Salisbury,  Epp.  27,  34,  69,  80,  89,  93,  107,  118,  166. 

"  Materials  for  the  History  of  Thomas  Becket,  v.  75;  Mansi,  xxi.  1194. 


EARLY  LEGISLATION  OF  HENRY  II  33 1 


were  in  the  habit  of  extorting  30  d.  from  every  man  or  woman  who 
went  to  the  ordeal  of  fire  or  water.*' 

Just  when  these  abuses  first  attracted  the  attention  of  Henry  II  is 
not  clear,  but  it  was  quite  early  in  his  reign.  At  the  outset  he  was 
hardly  favorably  disposed  by  the  fact  that  he  had  inherited  from 
Stephen  a  controversy  respecting  the  punishment  of  Archdeacon 
Osbert  of  York,  accused  of  poisoning  his  archbishop;"  and  he  soon  took 
up  the  case  of  a  citizen  of  London  despoiled  by  a  dean  et  longe  aliter 
iniuriatus  quam  civem  Londoniensem  oporteret}^  By  the  beginning  of 
1 158  he  had  legislated  on  the  subject,  as  we  learn  from  Fitz  Stephen.** 
The  narrative  tells  how  a  burgess  of  Scarborough  complained  to  the 
king  at  York  that  the  local  dean  had,  without  any  supporting  accuser, 
accused  his  wife  of  adultery  and  taken  twenty-two  shillings  from  him, 
twenty  of  which  the  dean  subsequently  declared  had  gone  to  the  arch- 
deacon. Such  accusations  had  already  been  forbidden  by  the  king, 
who  had  the  dean  brought  before  him  and  demanded  judgment  from 
his  prelates  and  barons,  declaring  that  the  archdeacons  and  deans  of 
the  kingdom  got  in  this  way  more  money  in  a  year  than  the  king 
himself  received: 

Quidam  decanus  abstulerat  ei  viginti  et  duos  solidos,  uxorem  ipsius  in 
capitulis  plurimis  vexans  et  deferens  sine  alio  accusatore  ream  adulterii, 
contra  quam  consuetudinem  rex  legem  prohibitionis  ediderat. 

John,  treasurer  of  York,  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  money  should  be 
returned  to  the  burgess  and  the  dean  should  be  at  the  archbishop's 
mercy  with  respect  to  his  ofl&ce,  whereupon  Richard  de  Lucy  asked. 
Quid  ergo  domino  regi  iudicabitis,  in  cuius  isie  incidit  constitutionem  ?; 
and  upon  the  answer  that  the  king  had  no  claim  from  a  clerk,  he  left  the 
court.  The  king  appealed  to  the  archbishop  but  did  not  follow  up  the 
matter,  being  called  over  seas  in  July  by  the  death  of  his  brother 
Geoffrey. 

Here  we  have  two  distinct  references  to  previous  legislation,  the  men- 
tion of  the  king's  law  in  the  narrative  and  the  reference  of  Richard  de 

"  C.  3,  X.  5,  37;  Jaffe-Lowenfeld,  no.  14315  (1174-1181);  cf.  Maitland,  Domes- 
day Book  and  Beyond,  p.  282.  That  some  payment  was  due  the  archdeacon  at  such 
times  is  assumed  by  Henry  of  Huntingdon,  himself  an  archdeacon:  Liher  Eliensis, 
p.  170.  For  other  forms  of  archidiaconal  exactions  see  Cartulary  of  St.  Frideswide's, 
i.  33,  no.  31;  Ramsey  Cartulary,  ii.  152. 

"  John  of  Salisbury,  Ep.  122;  cf.  Epp.  108,  no,  in.  "  Id.,  Ep.  80. 

"  Materials,  iii,  44  f.;  cf.  Radford,  Thomas  of  London,  pp.  193-195.  For  the 
presence  of  the  king  and  Richard  de  Lucy  at  York  see  Farrers,  Early  Yorkshire 
Charters,  no.  419. 


332 


APPENDIX  I 


Lucy  to  the  constitutio  regis.  The  first  is  specific  enough  to  show  that 
this  ordinance  dealt  with  the  same  problem  as  that  of  1159  and  the 
Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  unsupported  accusations  against  laymen  in 
ecclesiastical  courts.  That  the  king  intended  to  pursue  the  question  is 
further  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  aU  probability  he  repaid  the  burgess 
of  Scarborough  and  thus  took  over  his  interest  in  the  case,  for  in  the 
Pipe  Roll  of  1 1 58  we  find  a  payment  to  a  merchant  of  Scarborough  in 
camera  curie  of  22s.,  the  exact  amount  in  question."  The  problem  was 
postponed  by  Henry's  long  absence  on  the  Continent  from  11 58  to 
1 163,  but  it  was  not  forgotten.  At  Falaise  the  provision  of  the  earher 
constitutio  is  repeated  and  the  requirement  of  the  testimonium  vicinorum 
is  extended  to  his  own  local  officers;  and  soon  after  his  return,  he  makes 
the  conduct  of  the  archdeacons  the  first  of  his  grievances  against  the 
church  at  the  conference  at  Westminster.'* 

Another  of  the  '  customs  and  dignities  of  the  realm  '  which  Henry 
asserted  in  11 64  was  the  trial  of  all  questions  of  advowson  and  pre- 
sentation in  the  king's  court.''  Some  Norman  precedents  for  this 
claim  have  been  cited  above,''"  but  the  English  evidence  still  awaits 
investigation.  That  Henry  II  had  busied  himself  with  this  question  in 
England  before  11 58  appears  from  a  letter  of  John  of  SaUsbury^  to 
Pope  Adrian  IV  with  reference  to  a  dispute  concerning  the  church  of 
Henton  between  Arnold  of  Devizes  on  the  one  hand  and  Earl  Roger 
and  his  clerk  Osbert  on  the  other.  The  archbishop  had  secured  Arnold's 
restoration  to  the  church,  pending  a  decision  of  his  court: 

Cum  ergo  partibus  super  hoc  dies  esset  prefixa,  ea  die  iam  dictus  O.  et 
procuratores  comitis  adversus  prenominatum  E.  petitorium  instituerunt, 
dicentes  ipsum  iniuste  occupare  ecclesiam,  quam  sine  assensu  comitis  et 
advocatorum  eiusdem  ecclesie,  quam  contra  consuetudinem  totius  ecclesie  et 
regni  Anglorum,  contra  constitutionem  regis  et  antiquam  omnium  procerum 
dignitatem  ingressus  erat  manu  et  violentia  predonis,  qui  prefato  comiti 
totiun  fundum  in  quo  sepe  dicta  ecclesia  sita  est  diu  abstulerat.  Proferebatxir 
insuper  mandatum  regis  quo  precipiebamur  comiti  super  advocatione  ec- 
clesie sue  iustitiam  exhibere  aut  O.  pretaxatam  ecclesiam  restituere,  qua  post 
decessiuD  regis  contra  ipsius  edictum  fuerat  destitutus. 

Whereupon  Arnold,  fearing  the  influence  of  his  opponents  and  the  king, 
appealed  to  the  Pope,  and  Osbert  gave  up  the  fight.  Evidently  the 
proceedings  had  begun  under  Stephen,  but  the  edictum  was  of  Henry  II 

"  Pipe  Roll  2-4  Henry  II,  p.  146. 

1'  Summa  cause,  in  Materials,  iv.  201;  cf.  Atwnymus  II,  ibid.,  iv.  95. 
»»  C.  I.  »"  Supra,  Chapter  V,  p.  171  f.  *»  Ep.  6. 


EARLY  LEGISLATION  OF  HENRY  II  333 


and  so  also,  apparently,  was  the  constitutio.  We  cannot  press  too 
closely  the  terms  of  the  writer's  classical  Latinity,  yet  while  the 
edidum  may  relate  only  to  the  particular  case,  like  the  mandatum,  the 
constitutio  is  evidently  a  decree  of  general  scope  respecting  advowson. 
If  we  may  turn  the  classical  iustitiam  exhibere  back  into  the  legal 
rectum  tenere,  the  writ  to  the  archbishop  (mandatum)  is  also  interesting 
for  the  early  history  of  the  writ  of  right. 

The  procedure  in  such  cases  in  these  years  is  illustrated  by  the 
recently  pubhshed  report  of  an  inquest  respecting  the  church  of  St. 
Peter,  Derby  (1156-1159).  Twenty-four  men,  including  burgesses, 
knights,  and  priests,  were  summoned  by  royal  writ  before  the  sheriff 
and  the  archdeacon;  their  declaration  awarded  the  advowson  to 
the  successors  of  the  lord  in  whose  patrimony  the  church  had  been 
foimded.^ 

F.  M.  Stenton,  An  Early  Inquest  relating  to  St.  Peter's  Derby,  in  E.  H.  R.,  xxrii. 
47  f.  (1917). 


APPENDIX  J 


NORMAN  ASSIZES,  1 1 76-1 193  » 

Assizes  of  the  early  part  of  Henry  II's  reign  are  noted  in  Chapter  V 
(supra,  pp.  165-168).  The  following  hst  includes  such  assizes^  as  I 
have  noted  in  the  latter  part  of  this  reign  and  the  early  years  of  Rich- 
ard; when  he  appears  in  them  WUham  Fitz  Ralph  regularly  has  the 
title  of  seneschal.  The  list  is  based  almost  entirely  upon  charters,  for 
the  roU  of  11 80,  unlike  the  contemporary  Pipe  Rolls,  throws  no  Ught 
upon  the  judges'  circuits,  save  for  the  mention  of  WUham  Fitz  Ralph 
on  page  57  and  of  Geoffrey  le  Mome  on  page  52  (cf.  p.  78  and  Roimd, 
no.  517);  such  indications  are  more  abundant  in  the  roll  of  1195. 

/.  1177,  January;  Caen.  Richard,  bishop  of  Winchester,  Simon  de 
Tomebu,  Robert  Marmion,  WiUiam  de  Glanville  as  justices.  Livre  noir, 
no.  95 ;  DeUsle,  p.  347;  Round,  no.  1446. 

2.  1176-1178;  MoNTFORT.  Justices:  William  de  Mara,  wcowfe  of  Sainte- 
Mere-£glise,  WUliam  Malet,  Hugh  de  Cressi,  Seher  de  Quinci,  Alvered  de 
Saint-Martin,  constables  respectively  of  Pontaudemer,  Rouen,  Nonancourt, 
and  Neufchatel  (Drincourt).  Supra,  Appendix  H,  no.  10. 

J.  No  date;  Montfort.  '  Ista  autem  donatio  facta  est  apud  Montem- 
fortem  et  recitata  in  plena  asisia  coram  iusticiis  domini  regis,  scilicet  Seherio 
de  Quenceio,  Alveredo  de  Sancto  Martino,  etc'  Fragment  of  Bee  cartulary 
in  Archives  of  the  Eure,  H.  91,  f.  88v,  no.  4. 

4.  1 1 78-1 1 79;  Neufchatel.  William  Fitz  Ralph  holds  court.  Staple- 
ton,  i.  57. 

5.  1 1 80;  Argentan.  Agreement  'in  plena  assissa  .  .  .  coram  iusticiis 
domini  regis.'  Witnessed  by  WiUiam  Fitz  Ralph,  '  qui  preerat  assisse  loco 
domini  regis,'  WiUiam  de  Mara,  Richard  Giffart,  John,  count  [of  Ponthieu], 
Fulk  d'Aunou,  Ralph  Tessun,  and  others.  MS.  Lat.  5424,  p.  91 ;  Collection 
Moreau,  Ixxxiv.  76;  Vernier,  no.  128. 

50.  Co.  1 180;  Caen.  Fine  *  in  curia  mea  coram  iusticiis  meis.'  Round, 
no.  303;  DeHsle-Berger,  no.  564. 

6.  Before  11 82;  Roxien.  Judgment  'in  assisa  apud  Rothomagum  in 
curia  mea.'  Valin,  p.  271;  Round,  no.  26;  Dehsle-Berger,  no.  586. 

7.  1 1 83,  January  20;  Caen.  'In  curia  domini  regis  ...  in  plenaria 
assissa  '  before  WiUiam  Fitz  Ralph  and  many  others.  Valin,  p.  274;  Roimd, 
no.  432;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  638. 

1  Revised  from  A.H.  R.,  xx.  289-291  (1915). 

'  General  mentions  of  an  assize  without  indication  of  date,  place,  or  judges 
(e.  g.,  Sauvage,  Troarn,  p.  141,  note  6)  are  not  included.  The  list  of  cases  before 
the  Exchequer  (Chapter  V,  note  125)  should  be  compared  with  this  list  of  assizes. 

334 


NORMAN  ASSIZES 


335 


8.  1183;  Caen  (  ?).  William  Fitz  Ralph  and  many  others,  none  styled 
justices,  but  including  William  de  Mara,  Hamo  Pincema,  Geoffrey  Du- 
redent,  Jordan  de  Landa,  Richard  Fitz  Henry,  William  de  Calux,  and 
Roger  d'Arri.  Delisle,  p.  349;  Valin,  p.  276;  Round,  no.  437. 

p.  1 1 78-1 183;  LoNGUEViLLE.  William  Fitz  Ralph  and  many  Other  jus- 
tices. Valin,  p.  273. 

JO.  1 184;  Saint- Wandrille.  Grant '  in  plenaria  assisia  coram  Willelmo 
filio  Radulfi  senescallo  et  iustitia  Normannie  et  multis  aliis  iusticiis,  scilicet 
Willelmo  de  Mara,  Seherio  de  Quinceio,  Goscelino  Rusel.'  Collection 
Moreau,  Ixxxvii.  157  (cf.  f.  159),  from  lost  cartulary  of  Lire;  Le  Prevost, 
Eure,  ii.  111. 

11.  1184;  Caen.  '  Hec  finalis  concordia  facta  fuit  apud  Cadomum  in 
assisia  coram  Willelmo  filio  Radulfi  senescallo  Normannie  et  pluribus  aliis 
qui  tunc  ibi  aderant  inter  Robertum  abbatem  Sancte  Marie  de  Monteborc 
et  Henricum  de  Tilleio  de  ecclesia  Sancte  Marie  de  Tevilla,  unde  placitum 
erat  inter  eos  in  curia  domini  regis.  .  .  .  Testibus  W.  de  Mara,  Hamone 
Pincema,  W.  de  Romara,  Radulfo  de  Haia,  Rogero  de  Arreio,  magistro 
Paridi,  Radulfo  de  Wallamint,  lordano  de  Landa,  Roberto  de  Curie,  W.  de 
Sauceio,  lohaime  de  Caretot,  Willelmo  Quarrel  et  pluribus  aliis.'  Cartulary 
of  Montebourg  (MS.  Lat.  10087),  no.  474. 

12.  1 185;  Caen.  WUliam  Fitz  Ralph  and  other  justices  hold  assize;  the 
final  decision  is  given  at  the  Exchequer  before  an  important  series  of  wit- 
nesses. Valin,  p.  277;  Roimd,  no.  438;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  647. 

12a.  1 185;  LoNGUEViLLE.  Recognition  concerning  presentment  'in 
assisia  domini  regis.'  Delisle-Berger,  no.  651. 

ij.  1 186,  30  January;  Bayexjx.  Henry,  bishop  of  Bayeux,  William  de 
Mara,  Archdeacon  John  d'£raines,  and  other  justices  whose  names  are  not 
given.    Livre  noir,  no.  240. 

14.  1 186;  Rouen.  Agreement  before  William  Fitz  Ralph  and  Robert 
d'Harcourt  (without  title).  Collection  Moreau,  lix.  106,  from  the  original; 
cartulary  of  Fecamp  (MS.  Rouen  1207),  f.  8iv;  Rovmd,  no.  140. 

75.  1 186;  Caen.  Grant  in  presence  of  WiUiam  Fitz  Ralph,  WilHam  de 
Mara,  William  Calviz,  Richard  Fitz  Henry,  Geoffrey  de  Rapendun  '  tunc 
baiUivus  regis,'  and  others.  MS.  Lat.  n.  a.  1428,  f.  18,  from  original  at 
Carleton  Castle. 

16.  1 187 ;  Seez.  Grant  in  assize  '  coram  iusticiariis  domini  Henrici  regis, 
scilicet  coram  lohanne  archidiacono  de  Arenis  et  Willelmo  de  Mara  et  aliis 
pluribus.'  Litre  blanc  of  Saint-Martin  of  Seez,  f.  ii8v. 

i6a.  1188-1190;  probably  at  RoxJEN.  Grant  of  William,  abbot  of  Morte- 
mer, '  testibus  hiis:  lohanne  de  Constantiis  decano  Rothomagensi,  Willelmo 
filio  Radulphi  senescallo  Normannie,  Roberto  de  Harecort,  Ricardo  de 
Montigneio,  Willelmo  de  Martigneio,  Ricardo  Ospinel,  Willelmo  Tolemer, 
.  .  .  '   Original  in  Archives  of  the  Seine-Inferieure,  fonds  Saint-Ouen. 

77.  1 1 89-1 190;  Beenai.  Cartulaire  de  Notre-Dame  de  la  Trappe  (ed. 
Charencey),  p.  199;  cf.  Valin,  p.  116,  note. 

18.  1 190,  August  10;  Aegentan.  Question  of  presentation  'in  curia 
domini  regis.  .  .  .  Testibus  lohanne  archidiacono  Arenensi,  Richardo  de 
Argentiis,  Willelmo  de  Obvilla  constabulario  Falasie,  qui  prefatam  assisiam 


336 


APPENDIX  J 


tenuerant  die  festi  Sancti  Laurentii  anno  primo  peregrinationis  Philippi 
regis  Francie  et  Ricardi  regis  Anglorum.'  Cartulary  of  Saint-£vroul  (MS. 
Lat.  1 105  5),  no.  250. 

ig.  1 190,  August;  Seez.  Agreement  in  assize  '  coram  iusticiariis  domini 
regis  lohanne  Oximensi  archidiacono,  Ricardo  de  Hummez  comestabulario, 
W.  de  Ovilla,  Ricardo  de  Argentiis.'  Livre  blanc  of  Saint-Martin  of  Seez, 
f.  134. 

20.  1190;  Bernai.  *  Coram  Robert  de  Harecourt  et  Willelmo  de  Mara 
tunc  iusticiis,  Willelmo  Tolomeo  clerico,  Richardo  Sylvano,  comite  de 
Alengon,  Richard  Deri,  et  pluribus  aliis.'  An  assize  at  Montfort  under 
Henry  II  is  mentioned.  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H.  suppl.  486,  f.  9;  cf. 
supra,  Chapter  V,  note  95. 

27.  1190;  Caen.  Archives  of  the  Calvados,  H.  1872;  M.  ^.  iV.,  xv.  199; 
Round,  no.  461. 

22.  1 191,  October;  Caen.  William  Fitz  Ralph,  Richard  Silvain,  Richard 
d'Argences,  Hamo  Pincema,  Richard  Fitz  Henry,  Robert,  abbot  of  Fon- 
tenay,  Roger  d'Arri,  Eudo  de  Vaac,  Turstin  of  Ducey,  Geoffrey  the  chamber- 
lain, '  Lucas  pincema,  et  alii  multi '  witness  transaction  in  assize.  Archives 
of  the  Calvados,  H.  1868  (no.  46-18). 

23.  1191;  Rouen.   Valin,  p.  279. 

24.  1191;  Caen.  Agreement  'in  curia  domini  regis  apud  Cadomum 
coram  Willelmo  filio  Radulli  tunc  temporis  senescallo  Normannie  et  Willelmo 
de  Humetis  constabulario  domini  regis  et  Roberto  Wigomiensi  episcopo  et 
Ricardo  Selvain  et  Ricardo  de  Argentiis,  Willelmo  Caluz,  Ricardo  fiho 
Henrici,  et  pluribus  aliis.'  Roger  d'Arri  is  among  the  witnesses.  Archives  of 
the  Calvados,  H.  7077. 

25.  1 192;  Rouen.  Agreement  in  presence  of  William  Fitz  Ralph,  William 
de  Martigny,  Richard  d'Argences,  Durand  du  Pin,  and  other  justices. 
Chevreux  and  Vernier,  Les  archives  de  Normandie  et  de  la  Seine-Inferieure, 

35 ;  Vernier,  no.  164. 

26.  1187-1193;  Caudebec.  Agreement  'in  plena  assisia.'  Lot,  Saint- 
Wandrille,  p.  179,  no.  114. 

27.  Undated;  Caen.  Grant  of  Richard  Avenel  in  curia  before  William 
Fitz  Ralph  and  the  king's  justices  and  barons,  witnessed  by  WilHam  du  Hom- 
met  constable,  William  de  Mara,  Hamo  Pincema,  Jordan  de  Landa,  Richard 
Silvain,  Richard  d'Argences,  and  others.  Archives  of  the  Manche,  H.  212.' 

28.  No  date;  Bayeux.  Grant  '  coram  iustitiariis  scilicet  Willelmo 
Tolemeir  et  Ricardo  de  Argentiis  dictam  assisiam  tenentibus.'  Archives  of 
the  Manche,  H.  309. 

2Q.  No  date;  Bayeux.  Grant  in  assize  before  William  Pesnel,  arch- 
deacon of  Avranches,  William  Tolomert,  Hamo  Pincema,  justices.  Reper- 
toire of  de  Gerville  (Collection  Mancel  at  Caen,  MS.  296),  p.  275,  no.  21. 

'  Cf.  Richard  d'Argences,  Hamo  Potelier,  and  William  de  Caluz  as  witnesses  in 
a  document  of  this  period:  Farcy,  Abbayes  de  Veveche  de  Bayeux,  Fontenay,  p.  96. 


APPENDIX  K 


DOCUMENTS  FROM  THE  AVRANCHIN 

The  destruction  of  the  records  of  the  bishop  and  chapter  of  Av- 
ranches,  scarcely  less  complete  than  the  destruction  of  the  cathedral 
itself,  has  left  us  no  original  documents  of  the  eleventh  and  twelfth 
centuries.  The  only  surviving  cartulary,  the  Livre  vert  (MS.  Avranches 
206),  has  little  that  is  early;  the  Livre  blanc  is  known  only  through 
scattered  extracts;  the  modern  copies  are  few  and  unsatisfactory.^ 
Were  it  not  for  the  monasteries  of  Mont-Saint-Michel  and  Savigny, 
the  whole  diocese  would  have  httle  to  tell  us  of  this  epoch  in  its  history. 
Curiously,  however,  certain  documents  which  have  reached  us  from 
this  region  are  of  unusual  significance.  The  earliest  extant  notice  con- 
cerning ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  is  the  agreement  drawn  up  between 
Bishop  John  and  the  abbot  of  Mont-Saint-Michel  in  1061.^  One  of  the 
clearest  pieces  of  evidence  regarding  early  knight  service  is  found  in  a 
document  of  the  same  bishop  in  1066.'  A  few  years  later  Mont-Saint- 
Michel  gives  us  an  important  convention  respecting  feudal  tenure  and 
jurisdiction,'*  and  for  the  inquest  of  military  tenures  in  11 72  the  only 
detailed  statement  is  that  of  its  abbot.  ^  The  only  surviving  portion  of 
the  returns  from  the  great  royal  inquest  of  1171  is  that  relating  to  the 
Avranchin. 

*  See  Archives  de  la  France  nwnaslique,  xvii.  91-95;  the  extracts  from  documents 
in  E.  Le  Hericher,  Avranchin  monumental  ethistorique  (Avranches,  1845-1865);  and 
the  additional  pieces  in  E.  A.  Pigeon,  Le  diocese  d' Avranches  (Coutances,  1888), 
who  has  utiUzed  the  copies  of  Guerin  in  his  possession.  P.  Chesnel,  Le  Cotentin  et 
r Avranchin  som  les  dues  de  Normandie  (Caen,  191 2)  adds  nothing  new.  A  few  late 
copies  are  in  MS.  Regina  870  of  the  Vatican.  No  ducal  charters  for  Avranches  are 
known  save  one  of  Henry  II  (Pigeon,  ii.  661).  What  once  existed  may  be  inferred 
from  later  enumerations  of  the  grants  of  Robert  the  Magnificent  (Pigeon,  ii.  667; 
supra,  Appendix  C,  no.  i)  and  the  mention  by  Lucius  III  of  grants  of  Henry  I : '  Ex 
dono  Henrici  primi  regis  Anglie  dimidiam  partem  nundinarum  Sancti  Lamberti, 
decimam  nundinarum  Sancti  Andree,  decimam  nundinarum  de  Ponte;  in  Campo 
Cervorum  duas  garbas  decime  de  terra  Igerii  de  Lohf  et  Ranulfi  de  Burganoles; 
decimam  molendini  de  Cantarana;  duas  .  .  .  (where  a  gap  follows  in  the  MS., 
Livre  vert,  f.  2v).  Cf.  Stapleton,  ii,  p.  vi. 

*  Migne,  cxlvii.  265;  Pigeon,  ii.  658;  see  supra.  Chapter  I,  note  137. 
'  Le  Prevost,  Eure,  iii.  183;  supra,  Chapter  I,  note  58. 

*  Supra,  p.  21.  *  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  296-303. 

337 


338 


APPENDIX  K 


This  fragment,  copied  on  the  fly-leaf  of  a  text  of  Hrabanus  Maurus 
from  the  abbey  of  La  Luzerne,  was  first  published  by  DeUsle  in  1909.* 
Headed  by  a  list  of  twenty-six  milites  iuratores  and  nine  burgenses 
iuratores  de  Abrincis,  it  is  clearly  the  return  of  an  inquest.  It  contains 
a  clear  and  orderly  statement  of  the  royal  rights  in  the  vicomte  of 
Avranches,  including  the  farm,  the  proceeds  of  toUs  and  the  fair  of 
St.  Andrew,  the  parcels  of  demesne  in  city  and  country,  and  the  hold- 
ings of  the  tenants  in  capite  in  the  AvTanchin.  The  pleas  of  the  crown 
appear  as  a  part  of  the  demesne  under  a  special  custodian,  who  gives 
us  our  only  glimpse  of  a  Norman  coroner.^  As  regards  the  date  of  the 
docvmient,  Dehsle  *  placed  it  imder  Henry  II  but  after  the  death  of 
Hugh,  earl  of  Chester,  in  1181,  apparently  on  the  theory,  for  which 
the  text  itself  gives  no  support,  that  the  vicomte  was  in  the  king's  hands 
at  the  time  of  the  inquest.  Powicke  at  first '  assigned  it  to  the  reign  of 
Richard  because  of  the  phrase  tempore  regis  H.;  but  under  Henry  II 
this  is  constantly  used  to  designate  Henry  I  and  can  be  actually  con- 
nected with  him  in  the  inquest  itself,  which  refers  to  the  grant  of  the 
vineyard  at  Avranches  to  Savigny  by  a  rex  Henricus  who  is  in  this 
instance  known  to  have  been  Henry  1}°  Not  only  does  the  inquest 
belong  to  the  reign  of  Henry  II,  but  it  can  be  specifically  dated  therein. 
It  is  subsequent  to  3  March  11 70,  for  the  fief  of  Gilbert  d'A\Tanches, 
who  was  then  drowned,"  has  passed  to  his  heir,  likewise  so  returned  on 
the  roU  of  mihtary  tenants  in  1172;^  yet  this  heir,  his  brother-in-law 
Fulk  Painel,  has  not  yet  got  possession  of  the  rights  over  the  king's 
demesne  which  he  enjoys  in  1180.^^  Similarly  WUham  de  Ducey, 
mentioned  in  the  text  as  lord  of  Ducey,  died  before  1180,  when  his  suc- 
cessor, WiUiam  de  Hueceon,  owes  a  relief  for  this  honor."  Certain  of 

*  ffewn //,  pp.  345-347.  The  bishop's  fiefs  are  of  course  not  mentioned;  theyare 
enumerated  when  in  the  king's  hands  in  1198:  Stapleton,  ii.  361. 

'  Powicke,  The  Pleas  of  the  Crown  in  the  Avranchin,  E.  H.  R.,  xxv.  710  f. 
8  Henri  II,  pp.  333,  387,  420,  423,  448. 

'  E.  H.  R.,  xx\'.  710.  Later  he  accepted  the  date  here  proposed:  ibid.,  xsvi.  326; 
Loss  of  Normandy,  p.  68. 

1°  Cartulary  of  Sa\'igny,  in  Archives  of  the  Manche,  no.  6.  Cf.  M.  A.N.,  xx.  256; 
Delisle,  Etudes  sur  la  classe  agricole,  pp.  443,  445;  Delisle-Berger,  no.  80. 

"  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  17;  Benedict  of  Peterborough,  i.  4. 

^  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  ii.  640.  The  abbot's  record,  however,  has  been 
brought  up  to  date :  Robert  of  Torigni,  ii.  297. 
Stapleton,  i,  pp.  kviii,  11. 

"  Ihid.,  i,  pp.  kv,  II.  Evidence  that  William  de  Ducey  was  dead  by  1182,  if  not 
by  1179,  is  also  contained  in  charters  of  Richard,  bishop  of  Avranches  (d.  1182), 
reciting  gifts  made  in  William's  last  iUness  to  Savigny  (cartular>',  no.  127;  Auvry, 


DOCUMENTS  FROM  THE  AVRANCHIN 


339 


the  items  recovered  by  the  mquest  evidently  served  as  the  basis  for  the 
corresponding  entries  in  the  Exchequer  Roll  of  iiSo.^^  There  can  be 
no  question  that  the  inquiry  was  held  between  1170  and  1180,  and 
these  limits  can  be  drawTi  much  closer  if  we  identify  the  *  Robertus 
filius  Regis  '  of  the  inquest  with  the  Robert  Fitz  Roy  who  married 
Matilda  of  Avranches  and  is  said  by  the  chronicle  of  Ford  Abbey  to 
have  died  31  May  1172.^^  In  any  case,  between  11 70  and  11 80  there  is 
every  reason  for  ascribing  it  to  1171,  when,  according  to  Robert  of 
Torigni," 

Rex  Henricus  senior  fecit  investigari  per  Normanniam  terras  de  quibus 
rex  Henricus  avus  eius  fuerat  sasitus  die  qua  obiit.  Fecit  etiam  inquiri  quas 
terras  et  quas  silvas  et  que  alia  dominica  barones  et  alii  homines  occupa- 
verant  post  mortem  regis  Hem-ici  axi  sui;  et  hoc  mode  fere  duplica\-it 
redditus  ducatus  Normannie. 

No  other  records  of  this  investigation  are  available  for  comparison,  but 
the  Avranchin  doctmient  is  in  exact  accord  with  the  account  of  the 
chronicler,  himself  WTiting  at  Mont-Saint-Michel,  and  there  can  be  no 
reasonable  doubt  that  we  have  here  a  contemporary,  or  nearly  contem- 
porary, copy  of  the  original  returns  of  the  inquest  of  11 71  in  the 
A\Tancliin. 

The  following  notice  relates  to  the  ecclesiastical  rather  than  to  the 
pohtical  institutions  of  the  diocese  of  Avranches,  but  it  is  here  printed 
because  it  appears  to  have  escaped  the  attention  of  local  historians. 
It  is  found  in  a  manuscript  of  cc.  1200  in  the  Vatican,^*  MS.  Regina  946, 

Eistoire  de  la  congregation  de  Savigny,  iii.  188;  cf.  Delisle-Berger,  no.  591,  also 
anterior  to  1182)  and  to  Montmorel  {Cartulaire,  ed.  Dubosc,  no.  113).  Both  are 
attested  by  Ralph,  prior  of  Montmorel,  who  according  to  the  Gallia  Christiana 
(xi.  537)  became  prior  before  1171  and  ruled  eight  years.  For  other  references  to 
William's  donations  see  Cartulaire  de  Montmorel,  nos.  8,  10,  12,  109, 110-115,  p.  305; 
Round,  no.  721;  Pigeon,  Le  diocese  d' Avranches ,  ii.  671  f.;  Le  H^richer,  U Avranchin, 
i.  371,  376  f.,  387,  423  f-.  ii-  26,  587. 

"  Stapleton,  i.  11;  cf.  Powicke,  E.  H.  R.,  xxv.  710. 

1*  Monasticon,  v.  378.  Matilda,  between  1162  and  1171,  grants  as  '  uxor  Roberti 
fiJii  regis  '  to  the  bishop  of  AvTanches:  Pigeon.  Le  diocese  d' Avranches ,  ii.  339;  cf. 
Delisle-Berger,  no.  214.  Too  much  weight  must  not,  however,  be  attached  to  the 
Ford  chronicle,  which  is  not  earlier  than  the  fourteenth  century.  The  entries  which 
foUow  in  the  AvTanchin  inquest  would  lead  us  to  e.vpect  a  possessive  in  place  of  the 
nominarive:  '  Relnaldus  de  Cortenai  feodum  Robert:  filii  R.  in  Valle  Segie.'  This 
emendation  is  the  more  probable  since  Reginald  de  Cortenay  married  the  daughter 
or  stepdaughter  of  Robert  {Monasticon,  v.  3  78;  Stapleton,  ii,  p.  cxlv  f.),  and  Robert 
may  weU  have  died  before  1171. 

"  ii.  28. 

On  the  MS.  see  Pertz's  Arckiv,  xiL  311;  Liebermann,  Cesdze,  i,  p.  slii.  This 


340 


APPENDIX  K 


ff.  72V-74V;  certain  additions  in  a  different  and  slightly  later  hand 
are  printed  in  italics.  The  date  can  be  fixed  only  in  general  by  the 
age  of  the  codex  and  by  the  reference  to  William  de  Saint- Jean,  who 
is  mentioned  in  Norman  docimients  from  1133  to  1203.^^  Anterior 
to  the  death  of  WilUam,  the  text  is  subsequent  to  his  endowment  of 
La  Luzerne  in  1162  and  to  the  erection  of  Montmorel  into  an  abbey 
not  long  after  1171.^*  The  monasteries  mentioned  are  well  known,  so 
that  special  armotation  is  unnecessary. 

(F.  72v).  Prior  et  conventus  monachorum  Sancte  Mari§  de  Moretonio  ab 
antiquis  temporibus,  quia  in  eius  iurisdictione  sunt,  debent  episcopo  Abrin- 
censi  sollennem  processionem  et  annuam  procurationem  et  tam  episcopo 
quam  §cclesi§  Abrincensi  obedientiam.  Similiter  sanctimoniales  de  More- 
tonic  debent  sollennem  processionem  episcopo  et  tam  episcopo  quam 
gcclesig  Abrincensi  obedientiam. 

Priorissa  autem  et  conventus  sanctimonialium  de  Moutons  subditi  sunt 
episcopo  et  §cclesi§  Abrincensibus. 

Abbatia  de  Lucema  subdita  est  epLscopo  et  gcclesi?  Abrincensibus  duplici 
de  iure,  quia  fundata  est  et  sita  in  episcopatu  Abrincensi  et  quia  sita  est  in 
feodo  Beati  Andr§§  et  episcopi  Abrincensis,  quem  feodum  tenet  et  habet 
Guillelmus  de  Sancto  lohanne  ab  episcopo  et  inde  facit  ei  ut  domino  suo 
hominagiiun.  Abbas  vero  predicti  cenobii  debet  interesse  duabus  sinodis  et 
festo  hiemali  Beati  Andr§5,  vel  si  interesse  non  potest  duos  mittere  de 
canonicis  ecclesie  sue.  Similiter  debet  facere  et  tenetur  abbas  de  Monte 
Morelli. 

Abbatia  vero  Montis  Morelli  subdita  est  episcopo  et  §cclesi§  Abrincen- 
sibus duplici  ratione,  quia  sita  est  in  episcopatu  Abrincensi  et  constituta  et 
fundata  in  feodo  Beati  Andrgg  et  episcopi.  Isti  duo  abbates  debent  et  pro- 
mittunt  obedientiam  ecclesie  et  episcopo  Abrincensibus  cum  ipsi  sunt  bene- 
dicendi. 

(f.  73r).  Notum  sit  indubitanter  tam  presentibus  quam  futmis  quod 
abbatia  Sancti  Michaelis  de  periculo  maris  tam  episcopo  quam  ecclesie 
Abrincensi  multum  est  obnoxia,  quia  de  bonis  et  prediis  Beati  Andree  sibi 
coUatis  a  Beato  Auberto  Abrincensi  episcopo  fundamentum  et  institutionem 
accepit  et  in  episcopatu  Abrincensi  sita  est.  Unde  de  antiqua  consuetudine 
ratione  obnoxietatis  abbas  et  conventus  predicti  cenobii  singulis  annis  in 
hiemali  festo  Beati  Andree  debite  reddunt  ecclesie  Abrincensi  ut  matri 
gcclesig  novem  pondera  cere  secimdiun  pondus  predicti  cenobii,  que  equiva- 
lent et  equiponderant  quatuor  magnis  ponderibus  commimibus  et  dimidio  poo- 
ls doubtless  one  of  the  two  MSS.  relating  to  Avranches  which  are  mentioned  by 
Montfaucon,  Bibliolheca  Manuscriplorum,  i.  80. 

"  Tardif,  Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  p.  inf.;  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  500  f. 

"  Cartulairede  La  Luzerne,  ed.Duhosc,nos.  6,  7;  Neustria  Pia,p.  jg^  f.;  Pigeon, 
Le  diocise  d' Avranches,  ii.  374-376. 

Gallia  Christiana,  xi.  536  f.;  cf.  Carttdaire  de  Montmorel,  ed.  Dubosc. 


DOCUMENTS  FROM  THE  AVRANCHIN 


deri.  Summa  hanim  librarum  est  triginta  et  sex  libre  cgre.'  Reddunt  etiam 
predictus  abbas  et  monachi  debite  ecclesie  Abrincensi  in  predicto  festo  tres 
libras  incensi  et  episcopo  tres  libras  piperis.^  Reddit  insuper  predicta  abbatia 
singiilis  annis  ecclesie  Abrincensi  in  purificatione  Beate  Marie  tres  cereos 
formatos  continentes  ad  minus  quatuor  libras  cere.  Reddit  preterea  decano 
Abrincensi  singulis  annis  in  Pascha  Domini  .vi.  libras  Andegavensium 
monete  pro  pellitia  grisia.  Tenetur  etiam  abbas  predicte  abbatie  interesse 
hiemaU  festo  Beati  Andree  nisi  legitimam  habuerit  excusationem,  quam  si 
habuerit  mittet  pro  se  duos  de  dignioribus  ecclesie  sue.  Predictus  vero  abbas 
quando  benedicitur  professionem  facit  et  canonicam  obedientiam  promittit 
et  propria  manu  firmat  et  earn  obedientiam  promittit  episcopo  et  successori- 
bus  eius  et  ecclesie  Abrincensi.  Monachi  autem  predicti  monasterii  singulis 
annis  ecclesiam  Abrincensem  de  antique  usu,  ut  matrem  ecclesiam  cui 
honorem  debent,  in  die  martis  post  octavas  Pentecostes  cum  sollenni  pro- 
cessione  tenentur  adire  et  missam  in  honore  Beati  Andree  soUenniter 
celebrare.  Confirmatio  autem  electionis  abbatis  predicti  monasterii  ad  epis- 
copum  Abrincensem  pertinet.  Tenetur  etiam  predicta  abbatia  electum 
Abrincensem  in  episcopum  consecratum  cum  sollenni  processione  recipere. 
Confirmatio  vero  populi  et  consecrationes  ecclesiarum  predicti  Montis  et 
ordinationes  monachor\mi  et  clericorum  ad  solum  episcopum  Abrincensem 
pertinent.  Clerici  autem  predicti  Montis  bis  in  anno  tenentur  interesse 
sinodo  ecclesie  Abrincensis.  Similiter  et  abbas  Montis  Sancti  Michaelis 
eisdem  sinodis  debet  interesse.  Preterea  abbas  et  conventus  predicti  monasterii 
debent  et  tenentur  singulis  annis  reddere  episcopo  Abrincensi  in  octavis  Pen- 
thecostes  apud  Abrincas  per  nuncios  sues  sine  requisitione  .vii.  libras  Ande- 
gavensium monete. 

(f.  73 v).  Consuetudo  autem  est  antiqua  ut  episcopus  Abrincensis  si  vo- 
luerit  singulis  annis  ad  predictam  accedat  et  veniat  abbatiam  in  ultimo  festo 
Beati  Michaelis  ad  celebrandum  ut  episcopus  ibi  divina.  In  vigilia  vero 
Beati  Michaelis  habet  ex  debito  antique  et  procurationem  et  mansionem  cum 
comitatu  suo  episcopus.  In  die  autem  festivitatis  post  sollennitatem  et  cele- 
brationem  misse  habet  episcopus  cum  comitatu  suo  procurationem  et  inde 
post  quo  voluerit  debet  recedere.  Consuevit  preterea  episcopus  de  antique 
usu  predictum  monasterium  adire  si  voluerit  in  quarta  feria  ante  Pascha 
Domini  annuatim  causa  absolvendi  monachos  et  clerum  et  pepulum  a 
sarcina  peccatorum,  et  tunc  habet  ibi  episcopus  procurationem  suam  cum  suo, 
comitatu.  Salva  est  autem  episcopo  Abrincensi  in  predicta  abbatia  in  omni- 
bus canonica  iusticia.'  Prieratus  autem  predicte  abbatie  in  episcopatu 
Abrincensi  constituti  debent  de  consuetudine  episcopo  Abrincensi  annuam 
procurationem  et  priores  eorum  debent  ei  obedientiam. 

Abbas  Sancti  Stephani  de  Cadomo  de  consuetudine  debet  interesse  hiemali 
festo  Beati  Andree  in  propria  persona  vel  debet  mittere  unum  monacherum 
suorum  cum  litteris  suis  ad  prebandam  rationabilem  excusationem  sue 
absentie.  Hac  vero  de  causa  debet  interesse  abbas  predicto  festo  ut  episcopus 

'  Cf.  Longnon,  Pouillis  de  la  province  de  Rouen,  p.  162  (1412). 
^  Cf.  the  abbot's  render  to  the  king:  Delisle,  Henri  II,  p.  346. 
'  For  the  bishop's  justice  over  the  men  of  the  Mount,  see  Chapter  I,  note  137 


342 


APPENDIX  K 


Abrincensis  prioratum  suum  Sancti  Leonardi  et  priorem  et  monachos  ibi 
manentes  et  possessiones  eorum  manuteneant  et  contra  eis  iniuriantes 
ecclesiastica  censura  eos  defendat  et  tueatur. 

Similiter  abbas  Sancti  Severi  debet  interesse  hiemali  festo  Beati  Andr§§ 
de  consuetudine  vel  mittere  debet  cum  litteris  suis  sufficientem  et  idoneum 
excusatorem  cum  assignatione  rationis  sue  absenti?.  Hac  vero  de  causa 
debet  interesse  abbas  Sancti  Severi  predicto  festo  quia  habet  in  episcopatu 
Abrincensi  capellam  quandam  et  prioratum  cum  quibusdam  decimis  prope 
Haiam  Paganelli,  que  omnia  pertinent  ad  iurisditionem  et  defensionem 
episcopi  et  ecclesie  Abrincensium.^  Et  in  eodem  episcopatu  habet  ecclesiam 
de  Lucerna. 

(f.  74r).*  Sciant  proculdubioomnes  tam  presentes  quam  futuri  quod  inter 
episcopates  ecclesias  et  sedes  provintie  Rotomagensis  prima  et  dignior  est 
ecclesia  Baiocensis,  secunda  sedes  et  dignior  post  Baiocensem  est  ecclesia 
Abrincensis,  ut  legitur  scriptimi  in  quodam  libro  qui  nocte  et  die  est  super 
altare  Beate  Marie  Rotomagensis.  Baiocensis  vero  episcopus  est  decanus 
Rotomagensis  provintie,  subdecanus  autem  eiusdem  provintie  est  episcopus 
Abrincensis.  Vacante  autem  sede  Baiocensi  vel  eius  episcopo  in  remotis 
partibus  existente,  sup)erstes  episcopus  Abrincensis  sanctmn  crisma  et  oleum 
et  sacros  ordines  et  cetera  spiritualia  ecclesie  Baiocensi  et  eius  clericis  admi- 
nistrat  nec  ecclesia  Baiocensis  aliunde  debet  ea  accipere,  et  econverso. 

In  supradicto  vero  libro  qui  vacatur  Tabule  ^  sic  scriptum  legitur  in  ecclesia 
Rothomagensi:  Rodomus  vel  Rothomagus  metropolis  est.  Continet  enitn  sub 
se  sex  episcopates  civitates,  primam  scilicet  Baiocatarum,  secundam  scilicet 
civitatem  Abrincatarum,  tercia  civitatem  Evatinorum  que  dicitur  Ebroicas, 
quartam  civitatem  Salarium  que  dicitur  Sagium,  quintam  civitatem  Lexovi- 
arum,  sextam  civitatem  Constanciarum. 

(I.  74v).  Cum  omnes  ecclesie  in  quolibet  episcopatu  constitute  in  potes- 
tate  sint  diocesanorum  episcoporum  et  subdite  sint  matri  §cclesi§,  indubi- 
tanter  sciatur  ab  omnibus  ecclesiam  Sancti  Guillelmi  Firmati  de  Moretonio 
in  episcopatu  Abrincensi  constitutam  esse  subditam  episcopo  et  §cclesi§ 
Abrincensibus.  Debent  autem  et  tenentur  canonici  predicte  §cclesi§  episco- 
pum  Abrincensem  consecratum  de  antiqua  consuetudine  cum  sollenni  pro- 
cessione  recipere  et  ei  debent  annuam  procurationem;  cessare  vero  tenentur  a 
divino  servitio  et  officio  ad  eius  mandatimi,  quia  ei  debent  obedientiam 
exhibere  ut  subditi  prelato.  Mittunt  preterea  de  inveterata  consuetudine 
duos  de  canonicis  suis  ad  duas  sinodos  §cclesig  Abrincensis.  Consecratio 
autem  §cclesi§  sue  et  aliarum  ecclesiarum  suanmi  et  altarium  suorum  et 
ordinationes  canonicorum  et  clericorum  predicte  §cclesig  ad  solum  episcopum 
Abrincensem  pertinent. 

Abbatia  Savigneii  in  episcopatu  Abrincensi  sita  debet  episcopo  Abrincensi 
solleimem  processionem  et  annuam  procurationem  et  tam  episcopo  quam 

*  Cf.  Le  Hdricher,  ii.  40. 

'  Evidently  this  folio  or  its  contents  has  been  reversed,  as  the  two  final  para- 
graphs belong  here. 

'  Probably  the  Liber  ebumeus,  now  MS.  Rouen  1405,  in  which  this  paragraph 
is  found  (p.  26). 


DOCUMENTS  FROM  THE  AVRANCHIN  343 


gcclesi§  Abrincensi  canonicam  obedientiam,  quam  abbas  cum  benedicendus 
est  in  ecclesia  Abrincensi  publice  profitetur.  Dedicatio  autem  ecclesie  Savig- 
neii  et  consecratio  altarium  eius  et  ordinationes  monachorum  ad  solum 
episcopum  Abrincensem  pertinent.  Abbas  vero  Savigneii  et  abbas  Sancti 
Michaelis  de  Monte  et  alii  abbates  diocesis  Abrincensis  et  omnes  principales 
persona  conventualium  ecclesiarum  episcopatus  Abrincensis  debent  interesse 
processioni  Abrincensis  ecclesie  ad  recipiendum  cum  honore  episcopum 
Abrincensem  redeuntem  a  sua  consecratione,  vel  debent  mittere  duos  de 
dignioribus  ecclesiarum  suanuu  pro  se  si  non  possunt  interesse. 


( 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Mediaeval  names  of  persons  are  arranged  alphabetically  under  the  English  form  of  the  Christian 
name.  When  names  of  places  have  been  identified,  the  modem  form  is  given;  otherwise  the  form 
occurring  in  the  document  is  used. 


Abacus,  1 75,  176. 
Abbot,  see  Monasteries. 
Abingdon  (co.  Berks),  235. 
Achard,  bishop  of  Avranches,  216. 
Adam,  7. 

  de  Beaunai,  127. 

  de  Martainville,  326. 

 de  Sottevast,  138. 

  de  Wanneville,  166,  168,  219,  326. 

Adams,  G.  B.,  6,  56-58,  97,  179,  217. 
Adela,  wife  of  Richard  III,  59. 
Adelard  of  Bath,  131. 
Adelehn,  7. 

Adeliza  of  Abbetot,  298. 

  countess  of  Aumale,  29. 

  daughter  of  Richard  II,  274. 

Adelolf,  chamberlain  of  Bayeux,  63. 

  bishop  of  Carlisle,  in,  120,  124, 

308. 

Adrian  IV,  Pope,  332. 

Advowson,  171-174,  218,  332,  333. 

Agy  (Calvados),  109. 

Aids,  feudal,  19,  21,  22,  187. 

Aimo,  see  Haimo. 

Aiulf  du  Marche,  96. 

Aizier  (Eure),  93,  226,  253,  254. 

Alan,  20. 

  Ill,  count  of  Brittany,  261,  269, 

272. 

Alberic,  bishop  of  Ostia  and  legate,  154. 

Aldwin,  '  forbator,'  118. 

Alenfon  (Orne),  124,  311-313,319;  MSS. 

at,  42,  60,  70,  106,  244,  245,  300,  302, 

307;  see  Ome,  archives  of. 
Alexander  de  Bohun,  138,  139,  142,  145, 

162,  220. 

  bishop  of  Lincoln,  1 24,  303. 

 II,  Pope,  30. 


Alexander  III,  Pope,  181,  330. 

  son  of  Theold,  224. 

Alfred,  etheling,  275. 

  the  Giant,  270,  271. 

  brother  of  Godebold,  92. 

  de  Ludreio,  63. 

  Malbedenc,  22. 

  de    Saint-Martin,    constable  of 

Neufchatel,  327,  334. 
Alg',  102. 

Algar,  bishop  of  Coutances,  130,  146, 
220. 

  de  Sainte-Mere-figlise,  100. 

AUce  Trubaud,  173. 

AUermont  (Seine-Inf.),  140,  148,  149, 

151,  221,  305. 
Allod,  6,  290. 

Almeneches  (Ome),  abbey,  132, 133,  328. 
Alvered,  see  Alfred. 
AmfreviUe-la-Mi-Voie  (Seine-Inf.),  70. 
Ancher  de  Neville,  289. 
Andrew  of  Baudemont,  108. 

  abbot  of  Troarn,  98,  321. 

Andrew,  W.  J.,  122,  309. 
Angers  (Maine-et-Loire) ,  129;  bishop  of, 
35,  232- 

  Saint- Aubin,  abbey,  231. 

  Saint-Serge,  abbey,  231. 

AnglesqueviUe-sur-Saane    (Seine-Inf.) , 
260,  262. 

Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle,  61,  78,  128,  310- 

317- 
Angoht,  7. 

AngreviUe  (Seine-Inf.),  305. 

Anjou,  4,  35,  44,  46,  47,  56,  123, 124,  136, 
137,  142,  145,  146,  148,  150,  151,  154, 
155,  162,  230-232,  241,  312.  Counts: 
Fulk,  Geoffrey  Plantagenet. 


348 


INDEX 


Anneville-sur-Seine  (Seine-Inf.),  69,  290. 
Anquetil  d'Arri,  180,  328. 

  de  Hotot,  96. 

  priest,  7. 

Ansaud  de  Beauvoir,  108. 
Anselm,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  86, 
93,  310. 

  de  Dives,  321. 

  vicomle,  306. 

Ansfred  Bordet,  289. 

  abbot  of  Preaux,  279. 

  abbot  of  Saint-Wandrille,  228. 

  seneschal,  50,  275. 

  de  Sorquainville,  262. 

Anslec,  sons  of,  262. 
Anslevilla,  290. 
AppasUva,  261. 
Aragon,  195. 

Archdeacons,  hereditary,  7;  jurisdiction 
of,  31,  34,  35,  88,  171,  227,  228,  235, 
329-332. 

Archives,  221, 241-246;  see  Paris,  and  the 

several  departments. 
Ardeneta,  219. 
Ardevon  (Manche),  69,  185. 
Arganchy  (Calvados),  94,  95,  294,  313, 

319- 

Argences  (Calvados),  4,  39,  49,  252,  259- 

261,  272,  328. 
Argentan  (Ome),  42,  70,  loi,  105-107, 

119,  121,  124,  125,  128,  132,  134,  136, 

139,  141-143,  151,  152,  16s,  176,  183, 
184,  300-302,  304,  306,  307,  310,  319, 

334,  335- 
Arlette,  268,  269. 
Arnold  of  Devizes,  332. 
Amulf,  305. 

  chancellor  of  Bayeux,  226. 

  of  Choques,  chaplain  of  Robert  II, 

74- 

  bishop  of  Lisieux,  125,  130,  153, 

154,  158,  163,  165-168,  171-173, 
188,  203,  219,  221,  324,  326. 

  of  Montgomery,  70. 

  fitz  Peter,  236. 

Arques  (Seine-Inf.),  42,  100,  129,  131, 

140,  143,  149,  151,  152,  253,  254,  258, 
260,  261,  274,  318. 


Arras  (Pas-de-Calais),  abbey  of  Saint- 
Vaast,  59. 

Arriere-ban,  8,  23,  24,  187. 

Ars  (Manche),  21. 

Asnieres  (Calvados),  298. 

Asselin,  chaplain,  91. 

Assize,  105,  149,  150,  159,  165-169,  172- 
174,  179,  180,  184,  187-189,  198-201, 
209-219,  234,  238,  325-327,  334-336; 
of  Arms,  23,  159,  192,  193;  of  Claren- 
don, 188. 

Athelney  (co.  Somerset),  315. 

Atina  (province  of  Caserta),  233. 

Atto,  40. 

Atzelin,  7. 

Auberville  (Calvados),  63. 

Aubrey  de  Vere,  chamberlain,  121. 

Auchy  (Seine-Inf.),  67. 

Audoin,  bishop  of  fivreux,  in,  170,  296, 

297,  299,  302. 
Audrieu  (Calvados),  70. 
Auffai  (Seine-Inf.),  49. 
Auge,  108,  181. 

Aumale  (Seine-Inf.),  29,  78,  312,  317. 

Count:  Stephen.  Countess:  AdeUza. 
Aunay-sur-Odon  (Calvados),  abbey,  135, 

163,   297,   316,  326,   327.  Abbot: 

Vivian. 
Auvers  (Seine-et-Oise),  45. 
Auvray,  L.,  247,  281. 
Avelina,  niece  of  WUliam  Goth,  299,  301. 
Avoue,  36. 

Avranches  (Manche),  34,  35,  43,  129, 
165,  166,  180,  311;  archives,  244; 
bishop  of,  8,  18,  19,  34,  35,  37,  76, 
87,  167,  227,  228;  his  rights  over 
monasteries,  340-343;  chapter,  43, 
180,  272;  fair,  191,  337,  338;  MSS. 
at,  33,  41,  59,  69,  128,  142,  244,  245, 
273,  277,  281,  337;  vineyard,  338. 
Bishops:  Achard,  Herbert,  John, 
Maingisus,  Michael,  Richard. 

Avranchin,  8,  9,  128,  129,  160,  185,  188, 
191,  337-343- 

Bacqueville  (Seine-Inf.),  20. 
Bailli,  bailliage,  haillivi,  105,  147,  151, 
152,  163,  168,  177,  182-186,  209. 


INDEX 


349 


Baldwin  of  Beaumont,  68. 

  son  of  Clare,  91,  92. 

  bishop  of  fivreux,  51. 

  count  of  Flanders,  262,  275. 

Bampton  (co.  Oxford),  300,  301,  303. 

Banbury  (co.  Oxford),  235. 

Banlieue,  8,  29,  49,  117,  152,  153,  206, 

262,  279. 
Bapeaume  (Seine-Inf.),  216. 
Barcelona,  county,  5. 
Barentin  (Seine-Inf.),  253-255. 
Barfleur  (Manche),  43,  119,  314. 
Bari  (provdnce  of  Ban),  233. 
Barons,  of  curia  and  Exchequer,  89,  95, 

179,  180,  185. 
Barony,  9-24. 

Bastebourg  (Calvados),  128. 
Bateson,  Mary,  48,  49,  114. 
Bath  priory  (co.  Somerset),  66. 
Battle  abbey  (co.  Sussex),  49. 
Baudri,  20. 

  de  Bocquencfi,  7,  11,  12. 

  son  of  Nicholas,  11,  12. 

  Serjeant,  118. 

Bavent  (Calvados),  63. 

Bayeux  (Calvados),  7,  15,  16,  20,  21,  23, 
34,  39,  42,  43,  71,  75,  85,  86,  118,  124, 
128,  129,  143,  159-161,  163,  166,  167, 
183,  202,  205,  207,  213,  215,  216,  222, 
270,  280,  324,  335,  336;  archdeacon, 
32,  34;  bishop  of,  6,  14-18,  22,  37,  76, 
87,  91,  98,  103,  104,  133,  135-137,  149, 
150,  152,  154,  161,  171,  199,  201-215, 
244,  319,  342;  chapter  of,  66,  73,  99, 
100,  137,  180,  222-224;  chaplains  of, 
51,  52,  181;  Livre  noir,  133,  149,  197- 
215,  224-226,  244,  248;  other  MSS.  at, 
67,  244.  Bishops:  Henry,  Hugh,  Odo, 
Philip,  Richard  of  Kent,  Richard  fitz 
Samson,  Thorold. 

  Saint- Vigor,  66,  67,  73,  75,  76. 

Beau  bee  (Seine-Inf.),  94,  126. 

Beaumont-le-Roger  (Eure),  68,  230,  318. 

Beaunay  (Seine-Inf.),  69,  290,  291. 

Beaurepaire,  C.  de,  45,  151,  160,  244. 

Beautemps-Beaupr6,  C.-J.,  123, 136, 146, 
230-232. 

Beauvais  (Oise),  267,  269,  271. 


Beauvais,  Saint-Lucien,  67. 

Bec-Hellouin  (Eure),  Le,  abbey,  10,  29, 
34,  49,  68,  71,  74,  80,  82,  87,  89,  104, 
126,  127,  131-133,  136-138,  143,  159, 
166,  220,  224,  242,  245,  247,  272,  293, 
29s,  296,  306,  310-313,  31S,  317,  319, 
329,  334.  Abbots:  Herluin,  Roger, 
William. 

Becco,  '  mara  de,'  327. 

B^daime  (Seine-Inf.),  He  de,  260. 

Bedier,  J.,  269,  271. 

Seeding  (co.  Sussex),  83. 

BeUeme  (Ome),  268,  311. 

Bellencombre  (Seine-Inf.),  319. 

Bellou  (Ome),  33. 

Below,  G.  von,  25. 

Benedict  VIII,  Pope,  251. 

  of  Peterborough,  193. 

  archdeacon  of  Rouen,  68,  291,  293. 

Benet,  A.,  246. 

Bennetot  (Seine-Inf.),  260,  262. 

Benoit  de  Sainte-More,  268. 

Berger,  E.,  130,  132,  133,  138,  158,  162, 

201,  249. 
Berkshire,  in,  121,  235. 
Berlin,  MS.  at,  76. 

Bernagiutn,  39,  63,  70,  77,  80,  82,  222. 
Bernai  (Eure),  8,  9,  26,  27,  59,  60,  184, 

24s,  251,  257,  260,  261,  335,  336. 

Abbot:  Osbert. 
Bernard  de  Beaunay,  291. 

  de  Brus,  289. 

  de  Clairvaux,  154. 

  bishop  of  St.  David's,  94. 

  de  Saint-Valery,  187. 

  the  scribe,  88. 

Berner,  82. 

Berneval-sur-Mer  (Seine-Inf.),  9,  10,  25, 
26. 

Bernouville  (Seine-Inf.),  291. 

Besse,  Dom  J.-M.,  241. 

Bessin,  9,  43,  47,  129,  159-161,  167,  168, 

213,  214,  222,  296. 
BeuviUe  (Calvados),  63. 
Beziers,  M.,  206. 

Bigelow,  M.  M.,  196,  197,  221,  234,  237. 
Binbrook  (co.  Lincoln),  81. 
Birch,  W.  de  G.,  309. 


INDEX 


Bishops,  appointment  and  control  of, 
36,  37,  153,  154;  in  curia  and  admin- 
istration, 37,  54-58,  60,  77,  145,  146, 
149,  154,  181,  275;  military  service  of , 
8,  9,  14-19;  rights  over  monasteries, 
340-343.  See  Church,  Courts,  eccle- 
siastical. 

Bitetto  (province  of  Bari),  233. 

Biville-la-Martel  (Seine-Inf.),  260,  262. 

Blandford  (co.  Dorset),  295. 

Bloc,  sons  of,  261. 

Blood  feud,  32,  38,  60,  278. 

Bocherville,  Saint-Georges  de  (Seine- 
Inf.),  abbey,  106,  183,  226,  244,  312, 
318.   Abbots:  Louis,  Victor. 

Bocolunda,  261. 

Bocquence  (Orne),  11-14. 

Bodevilla,  302. 

Bohmer,  H.,  9,  30,  35,  36,  66,  86,  130, 

153,  154,  251,  278. 
Boiavilla,  259. 
BoUevUle  (Manche),  243. 
Bologna,  330. 
Bonaria,  bonata,  255. 
Boniface,  122. 

Bonneville-sur-Touques  (Calvados),  70, 

77,  93,  186,  311,  314. 
Bonnin,  T.,  248. 
BorreUi  de  Serres,  182. 
Bosc-Lehard  (Seine-Inf.),  81. 
Bosham  (co.  Sussex),  303. 
Bot,  280. 

Bougy  (Calvados),  16,  17. 

Boulogne  (Pas-de-Calais),  126.  Counts: 

Eustace,  Stephen. 
Bourges  (Cher),  45. 
Bourgtheroude  (Eure),  315. 
Bourrienne,  V.,  66,  67, 146, 197,  200,  201, 

206. 

Bou tellies  (Seine-Inf.),  287,  288. 
Bremule  (Eure),  313. 
Bresslau,  H.,  52. 
Bretcnolles,  252. 

BreteuU  (Eure),  313;  laws  of,  49. 
Bretteville-sur-Odon  (Calvados),  216. 
Brian  iitz  Count,  constable,  120,  300. 
Brighthampton  (co.  Oxford),  300-303. 
Brionne  (Eure),  49,  166,  168,  230,  315. 


Briouze  (Ome),  77. 

Briquessart  (Calvados),  129. 

Brittany,  Bretons,  35,  128,  227,  241,  269. 

Counts  or  dukes:  Alan  III,  Geoffrey, 

Odo. 

Brix  (Manche),  102. 

Brucourt  (Calvados),  325. 

Brunner,  H.,  3,  7,  25,  26,  56,  150,  157, 

189,  196-200,  204,  207,  209,  211,  214, 

217,  221,  223,  227,  277. 
BrunviUe  (Seine-Inf.),  259. 
Brussel,  N.,  27,  36. 
Bures  (Seine-Inf.),  138,  287,  288. 
Burgage,  186. 
Burgus,  48,  49. 
Bur-le-Roi  (Calvados),  183. 
Butler,  51,  77,  81,  89,  113,  180,  275. 

Cabourg  (Calvados),  216. 
Caen  (Calvados),  39,  41-43.  48,  58,  71, 
78,  81,  86,  94-98,  104,  107,  118-120, 
125,  128,  129,  14s,  151,  159,  165-168, 
174,  17&-178,  179.  182-184,  199,  213- 
216,  223,  242,  260,  262,  270,  271,  278, 
280,  307,  313-31S,  323,  324,  328,  333- 
336;  council  of,  37,  276;  MSS.  at,  69, 
91,  126,  24s,  246,  285,  336;  see  also 
Calvados,  archives  of. 

  La  Trinite,  abbey,  33,  43,  62-64, 

69,  74,  161,  188,  244,  248,  274, 
310.    Abbess:  Cecily. 

  Saint-fitienne,  abbey,  9,  14,  19,  33, 

34,  40,  43,  57,  69,  74,  78,  80,  81, 
94-96, 98, 103, 127, 166, 169, 173, 
179,  215-217,  238,  244,  267,  278, 
285-287,  294,  312,  313,  318,  341, 
342.     Abbots:    Gilbert,  Odo, 
William. 
CaiUy  (Seine-Inf.),  153. 
Calabria,  234. 
Calixtus  II,  Pope,  313. 
Calloenses,  92. 

Calvados,  archives  of  the,  13,  34,  40,  57, 
69,  90,  91,  93,  96,  108,  109,  133,  142, 
164,  172,  179,  216,  228,  229,  245,  246, 
260,  286,  287,  297,  306-308,  316,  321, 
322,  336. 


INDEX 


Cambremer  (Calvados),  49,  206,  207, 
211-213. 

Camera,  ducal,  40,  41,  44,  58,  108,  113, 

180,  194,  257. 
Campeaux  (Seine-Inf .) ,  255. 
Cannon,  H.  L.,  190. 
Cantarana,  337. 

Canterbury  (co.  Kent),  161,  183,  235. 
Archbishops:  Anselm,  Lanfranc, 
Ralph,  Theobald,  Thomas  Becket, 
William. 

Canute,  king  of  England,  261,  275. 
Capellaria,  52. 

Carbone  (province  of  Potenza),  234. 
Carcagny  (Calvados),  207. 
Carentan  (Manche),  165. 
CarteUieri,  A.,  193. 

Castles,  38,  60,  64,  65,  86,  107,  118,  119, 
14s,  176,  191,  194,  278;  castle  guard, 
8,  19-21. 

Catalogiis  barotium,  23,  24. 

Caudebec  (Seine-Inf.),  228,  336. 

Caux,  168,  181,  254,  260,  262. 

Ceaux  (Manche),  41,  81. 

Cecily,  daughter  of  William  I  and  abbess 
of  Caen,  75. 

Cefalu  (province  of  Palermo),  234. 

Celestine  II,  Pope,  203. 

Celibacy,  sacerdotal,  35,  66. 

Celier,  L.,  148,  330. 

Ceneau  (Coenalis),  R.,  247. 

Cenilly  (Manche),  163,  298. 

Census,  41. 

Cenlena,  centenaries,  25,  46. 

Cerisy-la-Foret  (Manche),  abbey  of 
Saint-Vigor,  9,  10,  43,  48,  245,  265, 
269-272,  27s,  279,  314.  Abbots: 
Durand,  Hugh. 

Cesny-aux-Vignes  (Calvados),  63. 

Chamberlain,  41,  50,  51,  77,  89,  90,  112, 
113,  116,  119-121,  162,  183,  275. 

Chambray  (Eure),  326. 

Champart,  103,  326,  327. 

Champcervon  (Manche),  337. 

Chancery,  Angevin,  136,  140,  142; 
Anglo-Saxon,  53;  Frankish,  51;  in 
Normandy,  51-54,  59>  74-76,  82,  112, 
"5,  135-143,  15s,  157,  162,  191.  274. 


Chandai  (Ome),  172. 

Channel  Islands,  129, 189;  su  Guernsey, 

Jersey. 
Chanteloup  (Manche),  21. 
Chapel,  chaplains,  ducal,  5 1-54, 74-76, 88, 

89,  no,  112,  118,  136,  137,  181,  275. 
Charentonne,  the,  11. 
Charte  aux  Normands,  190. 
Charters,  see  Chancery,  Diplomatics,  and 

the  several  dukes. 
Chartres  (Eure-et-Loir),  317;  chapter  of, 

33,  59,  80,  108,  162,  245.  Bishops: 

Fulbert,  Ives. 

  leprosery,  106,  107,  125,  126,  151, 

245,  319- 

  Saint-Pere,  abbey,  7,  33,  43,  59, 

100,  171,  223,  24s,  304. 
Chateau-du-Loir  (Sarthe),  27. 
Chateau-l'Hermitage  (Sarthe),  129. 
Cheffreville  (Calvados),  207,  211,  212. 
Cherbourg  (Manche),  43,  78,  146,  152, 

167,  180,  183,  186,  220;  canons  of,  43, 

53;  MSS.  at,  246. 

  abbey  De  Voto,  116,  136,  186. 

Chesnel,  P.,  21,  47,  337. 

Chester,  121;  earl  of,  161,  236.  Earls: 

Hugh,  Ranulf,  Richard.  Countesses: 

Lucia,  Matilda. 
Chesterfield  (co.  Derby),  236. 
Cheux  (Calvados),  68,  286,  287. 
Chevreux,  P.,  246,  258. 
Chisenbury  (co.  Wilts),  311. 
Church,  Norman,  6,  7,  30-38,  60,  65,  66, 

80,  86,  125,  126,  129,  130,  146,  153, 

154;  see  Bishops,  Councils,  Courts, 

Jurisdiction,  Monasteries. 
Circada,  170. 
Clare  of  Rouen,  91,  92. 
Clarendon,  Assize  of,  188;  Constitutions 

of,  169,  171-174,  198,  220,  226,  237, 

329,  330,  332- 
Clerks,  jurisdiction  over,  31,  32,  171. 
Clermont  (Puy-de-D6me),  council  of, 

6s,  66. 

Cluny  (Saone-et-Loire),  106,  133,  245, 
253,  254,  318.  Abbots:  Odilo,  Peter. 

Coinage,  28,  29,  38,  39,  60,  65,  86,  113, 
171,  182,  187,  280,  281. 


352 


INDEX 


Colchester  (co.  Essex),  313,  314. 
Colmant,  P.,  245. 
Colombelles  (Calvados),  63. 
Comes  palatii,  51. 

Conches  (Eure),  abbey,  49,  79,  245,  304, 

326.  Abbot:  Gilbert. 
Cond6-sur-Ifs  (Calvados),  302. 
Conde-sur-Noireau  (Calvados),  49. 
Conon,  bishop  of  Palestrina  and  legate, 

314. 

Conquest,  Norman,  3,  4,  5,  8,  16,  61. 
Constable,  50,  51,  89,  95,  121,  152,  162, 

180,  182,  184,  186,  187,  27s,  317. 
Constantine,  knight,  291. 
Constantinople,  267,  270. 
Constilutio  domus  regis,  108,  113-120. 
Consuetudines,  ducal,  27-29,  33-39,  46, 

271,  279;  episcopal,  33-35,  251. 
Consuetudines  et  iusticie,  4,  28,  29,  38,  48, 

64,  6s,  78,  243,  276-284. 
Corbuzzo,  chamberlain,  50. 
Corhulma,  260,  262. 

Cormeilles  (Eure),  49;  abbey,  10,  187, 

245.    Abbot:  William. 
Coronation,  190. 
Coroner,  188,  338. 
C6te-d'0r,  archives  of  the,  66,  67. 
Cotentin,  9,  43,  47,  63,  64,  71,  87,  100- 

102,  124,  127,  129,  136,  141,  149,  246, 

276. 

Councils,  ecclesiastical,  4,  6,  30-38,  65, 
66,  170,  276,  294,  309,  310,  312,  313, 
316,  330. 

Count,  as  title  of  Norman  dukes,  26,  73, 
274. 

Counterfeiting,  86,  171,  187. 

Courbepine  (Eure),  8. 

Courcy-sur-Dive  (Calvados),  143. 

Courts,  baronial,  22,  24-30,  89,  97,  103, 
150,  166,  172,  184,  187,  228-230,  278, 
279;  ducal,  see  Assize,  Curia,  Exche- 
quer; ecclesiastical,  30-37,  169-174, 
179,  185,  188,  220,  223-228,  321-323, 

327,  329-332;  forest,  48,  103;  suit  of 
court,  22,  24.    See  Jurisdiction. 

Coutances  (Manche),  43;  bishop  of,  6, 
8,  30,  36,  39.  43,  76,  133,  137,  141, 
149,  171,  220,  319,  342;  ecclesiastical 


archives,  220,  221,   242,  244,  247. 

Bishops:    Algar,    Geoffrey,  Ralph, 

Richard,  Robert,  Roger. 
Couiumier  des  forets ,  160;  de  Normandie, 

see  Tres  Ancien  Couiumier. 
Coventry  (co.  Warwick),  330. 
Coville,  A.,  55,  190. 
Cramesnil  (Calvados),  210,  212. 
Creech  (co.  Somerset),  81. 
Cristot  (Calvados),  70,  216. 
Croix-Saint-Leufroy  (Eure),  243. 
Croleium,  302. 

Crusades,  65,  71,  74,  75,  79,  159,  205, 
230. 

Cullei  (Ome),  11-14. 

Curia,  Capetian,  49;  of  Norman  dukes, 
32.  33.  47,  49-60,  70.  76,  77,  83,  87- 
100,  104,  114,  125,  147-149,  155,  163- 
165,  171-174,  178-189,  194,  275,  323- 
326,  334-336.  See  Assize,  Court, 
Household. 

CurtberUlt,  286. 

Customs,  see  Consuetudines. 

Danegeld,  40,  116,  166,  177. 

Daniel,  Master,  328. 

Danvou  (Calvados),  16. 

Dapifer,  see  Seneschal. 

Darrein  presentment,  172. 

David,  C.  W.,  62,  76. 

Davis,  H.  W.  C,  s,  31,  51,  53-55,  81,  82, 
8s,  87,  125,  249,  309. 

Deans,  rural,  37,  171,  226,  329-332- 

DeUsle,  L.,  4,  36,  39,  57,  lor,  117,  130, 
132-134.  137,  157,  158,  162,  166,  174, 
178,  190,  191,  197,  199-201,  209,  218, 
221,  241,  243,  246-249,  255-257,  263, 
276,  278,  325-327,  338,  340. 

Derby,  235,  333. 

Deslandes,  E.,  197. 

Deville,  A.,  5,  144,  193,  247,  248,  255, 
258. 

  E.,  97,  248. 

Dialogue  on  the  Exchequer,  40,  43,  113, 
114,  158,  174-178,  191,  242,  280. 

Dieppe  (Seine-Inf.),  42,  118,  119,  130, 
131,  14s,  149.  151,  152,  178,  300.  304, 
318. 


INDEX 


353 


Dijon  (C6te-d'0r),  75;  see  C6te-d'0r. 
 Saint-B^nigne,  abbey,  40,  60,  66, 

67,  69,  75.  76,  24s,  267,  28s,  286. 

Abbots:  Gerento,  William  I  of 

Fecamp. 

  Saint-fitiemie,  abbey,  272. 

Diplomatics,  Norman,  53,  72-76,  82,  83, 

135-143.  274.  275- 
Dipte,  259. 
Dispenser,  77,  116. 

Dives  (Calvados),  95, 173,  215,  216,  321. 
Diwan,  112. 

Dol  (Ille-et-Vilaine),  archbishops:  Jun- 

guen6,  Roland. 
Domain,  ducal,  39,  86,  151,  159,  160. 
Domesday,  3,  4,  22,  29,  40,  57,  121,  207, 

234,  241,  242. 
Domfront  (Ome),  64, 124, 163, 165, 183, 

186,  323. 
Dopsch,  A.,  26. 
Douvrend  (Seine-Inf.),  6. 
Douvres  (Calvados),  223,  224. 
Dover  (co.  Kent),  78. 
Dreux,  Drogo,  count  of  Amiens,  273. 

  count  of  the  Vexin,  268,  272. 

Dublin,  183. 

Ducy  (Calvados),  147,  211. 
Dudo  of  Saint-Quentin,  4,  5,  38,  52,  241, 
252. 

Duel,  judicial,  28,  56,  97,  98,  104,  221. 
Dufayard,  C,  190. 
Dugdale,  W.,  298. 

Duke  of  Normandy,  ecclesiastical  su- 
premacy of,  36-38,  66,  80,  153,  154; 
income  of,  39-45;  jurisdiction  of,  24- 
29,  39,  187,  188,  278—280;  limitations 
on,  190;  maintenance  of  order  by,  38; 
military  service  due,  8-23.  See  As- 
size, Chancery,  Coinage,  Curia,  Do- 
main, Household,  Jurisdiction. 

Du  M^ril,  E.,  269. 

Du  Monstier,  A.,  248,  257, 

Dun  (Seine-Inf.),  255. 

Duplessis,  Dom  Toussaint,  110,  260. 

Durand,  7. 

 cellarer,  291. 

 abbot  of  Cerisy,  262,  263. 

 du  Pin,  336. 


Durham,  66,  78,  81,  119.  Bishops: 
Ranulf  Flambard,  William  of  Saint- 
Calais. 

Eadmer,  36,  75,  79,  114,  115,  314. 
Easter,  curia,  55,  60;  style  of  dating,  1 25, 
138,3"- 

Eaui,  forest  of  (Seine-Inf.),  140,  151. 
Ebulus  de  Mallano,  233. 
ficrammevilie  (Calvados),  63. 
ficretteville  (Seine-Inf.),  253,  254,  260, 
261. 

Edward  the  Confessor,  king  of  England, 
48,  261,  262,  273,  275,  279. 

  of  SaUsbury,  294. 

filetot  (Seine-Inf.),  255,  260,  261. 
Elias  of  Saint-Saens,  289. 
Eling  (co.  Hants),  316. 
Elisabeth,  20. 

Ely  (co.  Cambridge),  235,  316.  Bishop: 
Neal. 

fimalleville,  (Seine-Inf.),  8. 
fimendreville,  68,  81  (?),  82  (?),  293. 
Emma,  abbess  of  Saint-Amand,  93. 
Empliones  Eudonis,  94-97,  318. 
Engel,  A.,  280. 

England,  4,  19,  29,  33,  36,  37,  40;  in  re- 
lation to  Norman  institutions,  3,  5,  6, 
30.  34,  36,  40,  46-49.  52-54,  57,  58, 
82,  83,  85,  86,  94,  100,  103,  107,  108, 
112-122,  142,  143,  186,  188-193,  196, 
226,  227,  234-238,  241-243,  263,  264, 
277-280.  Kings:  Edward,  Ethelred  II, 
Henry  I,  II,  HI,  V,  VI,  John,  Richard, 
William  I,  II. 

Englesqueville  (Calvados,  canton  Isigny) 
63. 

Enguerran,  63,  289. 
  chaplain,  291. 

  son  of  Enguerran,  canon  of  Seez, 

307- 

  son  of  Ilbert,  76,  289,  291,  292. 

  Oison,  307. 

  count  of  Ponthieu,  262,  275. 

  de  Vascoeuil,  92,  127,  145,  148. 

Enjuger  de  Bohim,  138,  145,  148,  149, 

207,  209,  210,  220. 
Enlart,  C,  278. 


354 


INDEX 


Enna, '  Christi  famula,'  274. 
Envenneu  (Seine-Inf.),  68,  100. 
fipaignes  (Eure),  324. 
£paney  (Calvados),  173. 
fipemon  (Eure-et-Loir) ,  316. 
Episcopal  laws,  30-32. 
Ermenaldus  the  Breton,  267. 
Ermendi  villa  (Seine-Inf.?),  262. 
Ermenouville  (Seine-Inf.),  260. 
Emald  du  Bois,  297. 

  chaplain,  52,  275. 

Ertald,  69. 

Escures  (Calvados),  147,  148,  224,  296. 
Esmein,  A.,  24. 
Esnecca,  121,  122. 
Essex,  301. 

Estrees-la-Campagne  (Calvados),  302. 

fitables  (Seine-Inf.),  69,  291. 

Etamp>es  (Seine-et-Oise),  45. 

fitard  Poulain,  167,  168,  173,  323,  324. 

Ethelred  11,  king  of  England,  48. 

fitienne,  see  Stephen. 

fitigues  (Seine-Inf.),  133,  253. 

fitretat  (Seine-Inf.),  226. 

fitreville-en-Roumois  (Eure),  229. 

Eu,  29,  66,  78,  79,  81,  82.  Counts: 

Henry,  Robert. 
Eudo,  see  Odo. 

Eugene  III,  Pope,  154,  203-205,  211,  223. 

Eure,  archives  of  the,  7,  29,  30,  42,  50, 
68,  70,  82,  109,  III,  126,  134,  140,  166, 
170,  172,  244-246,  273,  279,  306,  318, 
323,  324,  326,  334. 

Eure-et-Loir,  archives  of  the,  106,  125. 

Eustace,  count  of  Boulogne,  68,  87,  293. 

 of  Breteuil,  287. 

  fitz  John,  303. 

Evrecy  (Calvados),  17. 

fivreux  (Eure),  86,  105,  106,  124,  296, 
313.  315;  archdeacon  of,  87,  109; 
archives  and  MSS.  at,  244,  246,  see 
Eure;  bishop  of,  8,  37,  57,  76,  87,  121, 
133,  140,  151,  181,  244,  320,  342; 
chapter,  iii,  318;  counts  of,  29,  42, 
54,  167.  Bishops:  Audoin,  Baldwin, 
Gilbert,  Hugh,  Rotrou.  Counts: 
Richard,  WiUiam. 

  Saint-Sauveur,  abbey,  245. 


fivreux,  Saint-Taurin,  abbey,  10,  26,  29, 
42,  87,  104,  244,  260,  272. 

Exchequer,  English,  40,  106,  111-113, 
174-178,  181,  191;  Norman,  39-45, 
64,  84,  88,  89,  94,  95,  97-99,  105-111, 
119,  120,  151,  157,  158,  167,  174-182, 
191,  192,  194,  242,  328,  334,  335. 

Exeter  (co.  Devon),  103.  Bishop: 
William. 

Exmes  (Ome),  42,  105,  106,  124,  151, 

300-302. 
Eyton,  C,  298,  309,  317. 

F.  de  Tinchebrai,  222. 

Falaise  (Calvados),  39,  86,  91,  105-107, 
113,  119,  121,  125,  129,  151,  159,  176, 
183,  186,  206,  219,  222,  226,  238,  300, 
301,  308-310,  313,  316,  320,  329,  330, 
332. 

Falcheran,  monk,  328. 

Farm,  of  vicomU  and  prevdte,  43-47,  105- 

107,  126,  151,  176-178,  186,  191. 
Fauguemon  (Calvados),  143. 
Fealty,  Uege,  22. 

Fecamp  (Seine-Inf.),  abbey,  7-10,  25,  29, 
33,  41-43,  5°,  52,  55,  59,  60,  64,  69,  71, 
72,  78,  80,  83,  86,  87,  89,  90,  93,  103, 
104,  129-131,  133,  140,  147,  160,  163, 
179,  181,  185,  188,  222,  226,  229,  244, 
246,  247,  250-264,  266,  271-273,  280, 
287-290,  318,  335;  Musee,  246,  250- 
263,  287-289.  Abbots:  Henry,  John, 
Roger,  William. 

Felony,  188. 

FeudaUsm,  Norman,  5-30,  60. 
Finance,  see  Exchequer,  Farm. 
Fish,  rights  over,  39,  94,  161. 
Flach,  J.,  5,  27. 

Flanders,  4,  5, 36, 37,  44,  53,  56,  57,  193, 

241.    Count:  Baldwin. 
Fleure  (Ome),  301. 
Fliche,  A.,  49,  64,  79,  80. 
Florence  of  Worcester,  78. 
Fodrium,  231. 

Fontenay  abbey  (Calvados),  222.  Ab- 
bot: Robert. 
Fontenay-le-Pesnel  (Calvados),  69. 
Fontenay-Saint-Pere  (Seine-et-Oise),  33. 


INDEX 


355 


Fontevrault    (Maine-et-Loire),  abbey, 

io6,  126,  154,  245,  317. 
Ford  abbey  (co.  Devon),  339. 
Forests,  32,  38,  39,  43,  47,  48,  102,  103, 

117,  118,  140,  152,  160,  181,  182,  185, 

207,  213,  214,  222,  279. 
Formeville,  H.  de,  36,  no. 
Foucarmont  (Seine-Inf.),  abbey,  83,  166, 

244. 

Foucar\'ille  (Manche),  loi. 

Foulbec  (Calvados),  63. 

France,  its  government  compared  with 
Normandy,  44,  45;  Norman  influence 
on,  3,  178,  193;  Norman  relations 
with,  s,  IS,  20,  130,  243.  Kings: 
Henry  I,  Louis  VI,  VII,  X,  Philip  I, 
II,  Robert. 

Franchises,  24-30. 

Franks,  institutions  of  the,  25,  46,  48, 

52,  54,  196,  197,  227,  233. 
Frederick  II,  emperor,  234. 
Freeman,  E.  A.,  30,  31,  57,  58,  62,  75, 

78-80,  265,  273,  278. 
Fresnay-sur-Sarthe  (Sarthe),  69. 
FreviUe,  E.  de,  48. 

  R.  de,  91,  96,  178,  184. 

Froger,  bishop  of  S6ez,  181,  326. 
Fulbert,  bishop  of  Chartres,  33,  267. 

 archdeacon  of  Rouen,  68,  291-293. 

Fulk,  19. 

 archdeacon,  7. 

  of  Jerusalem,  count  of  Anjou,  123, 

136,  141,  230-232,  311. 

 the  Red,  count  of  Anjou,  123. 

  d'Asnieres,  63. 

  d'Aunou,  149,  334. 

  dean  of  fivreux,  7. 

  son  of  Fulk,  97,  98. 

  dean  of  Lisieux,  173,  322. 

  merchant,  291. 

  Painel,  338. 

 abbot  of  Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive,  68. 

Fumess  abbey  (co.  Lancaster),  316. 
Fyrd,  23. 

Gac6  (Calvados),  63. 
Gaignieres,  R.  de,  247. 
Gaillon  (Eure),  186. 


Galeran  I,  count  of  Meulan,  256,  275. 

  II,  92,  94,  96,  121,  127,  129,  145, 

148,  152,  153,  162,  166,  167,  173, 
187,  205,  208,  211,  219,  228,  229, 
29s.  300,  313,  315,  321. 

Galley,  royal,  121,  122. 

GanzeviUe  (Seine-Inf.),  255. 

Garin  de  Grandval,  219. 

Gaucher  Escorchechine,  328. 

Gautier,  see  Walter. 

Gavray  (Manche),  43,  172,  218. 

Gazel,  262. 

Genest  (Manche),  185. 

Genestal,  R.,  22,  48. 

Geoffrey  d'Abbetot,  299. 

  Plantagenet ,  count  of  Anjou  and 

duke  of  Normandy,  316;  char- 
ters of,  IS,  8s,  93,  129,  131-145, 
147-153.  197,  199-201.  204-212, 
220,  221;  and  the  jury,  199-238; 
Normandy  under,  53,  123-15S, 
162,  192,  193. 

  count  of  Beaumont,  256. 

  duke  of  Brittany,  183,  331. 

  de  Brucourt,  325. 

  de  Bruere,  147,  148. 

  chamberlain,  336. 

  chaplain  and  chancellor  of  Henry 

I,  294,  299,  303. 

  de  Clairvaux,  147. 

  de  Clefs  (Cleers)  (Maine-et-Loire), 

145,  146,  IS3,  220. 

  de  Clinton,  chamberlain,  89,  113, 

294,  300. 

  de  Courtonne,  Master,  clerk,  328. 

  de  Courville,  295. 

  de   Montbray,    bishop   of  Cou- 

tances,  34,  36,  S4,  57,  68. 

  Duredent,  335. 

  de  Fontenay,  9s. 

  brother  of  Henry  II,  319. 

  son  of  Mabel,  323. 

  Malaterra,  266. 

  de  Mandeville,  107,  295. 

  le  Moine,  334. 

  de  Neufbourg,  324. 

  son  of  Payne,  107,  120,  303,  306, 

307. 


3S6 


INDEX 


Geoffrey,  priest,  104. 

  de  Repton  (Rapendun),  335. 

 archbishop  of  Rouen,  92,  109,  294, 

297. 

 dean  of  Rouen,  13,  138,  325. 

 de  Sable  (Subles),  justice,  95,  99. 

  de  Sai,  22. 

  abbot  of  Savigny,  296. 

  son  of  Thierry,  322. 

 de  Tours,  220. 

 priest  of  Vesli,  32. 

Gerald  'ad  barbam,'  92. 

 de  Barri  (Giraldus  Cambrensis), 

131,  153- 
  butler,  50. 

  abbot  of  Saint- Wandrille,  68. 

 seneschal,  50,  51,  56,  58. 

Gerard  de  Goumay,  68. 

  archdeacon  of  Rouen,  68. 

  bishop  of  S^ez,  153 

G6re,  268. 

Gerento,  abbot  of  Saint-Benigne,  75, 

79,  28s,  286. 
Gervase  of  Canterbury,  130,  132. 

  de  Fresnay,  164. 

Gerville,  C.  de,  246,  248,  336. 
Gilbert,  7,  20. 

  archdeacon,  139. 

  of  Avranches,  338. 

  Belet,  289. 

 son  of  Bernard,  68,  109. 

  count  of  Brionne,  263,  266,  268, 

275- 

 de  Brucourt,  325. 

  abbot  of  Conches,  326. 

  cook,  291. 

  Crispin,  68. 

 d'fivreux,  treasurer,  108,  109. 

  bishop  of  Evreux,  68,  289,  292. 

  de  Fourches,  322. 

— —  son  of  Gunduin,  298. 

  de  Hotot,  324. 

  de  La  Hogue,  185. 

  de  Laigle,  92,  287. 

  bishop  of  Lbieux,  51,  292. 

  Foliot,  bishop  of  London,  330. 

  the  Universal,  bishop  of  London, 

303- 


Gilbert  de  la  Mare,  92. 

  'nummarius  '  (?),  140. 

  Pipart,  180. 

  son  of  Rainier,  289. 

 chanter  of  Rouen,  109. 

  abbot  of  Saint-fitienne,  68,  69,.  75, 

286. 

  '  scolasticus,'  68. 

  seneschal,  275. 

  de  Vascoeuil,  325. 

 Warren,  291. 

  d'Yainville,  327. 

Giraldus,  see  Gerald. 
Girberga,  wife  of  Ralph  fitz  Ansere,  292. 
Giruinivilla,  253,  254,  261,  262. 
Giry,  A.,  144. 

Gisors  (Eure),  64,  311,  313,  315. 
Gisulf,  scribe,  113. 

Glanvill,  97, 158, 186,  189, 191,  198,  217, 
242. 

Glastonbury  (co.  Somerset),  161. 
Gloucester,  236. 
Gloz  (Eure),  313. 

Godard  de  Vaux,  167,  168,  219,  323-326. 
Godebald  de  Saint- Victor,  92. 
Gohier,  288,  289. 

  de  Morville,  297. 

Goldsmith,  duke's,  152. 
Goleium,  302. 

Gonbert  de  Gervinivilla,  262. 
Gonfred  de  Gervinivilla,  261. 
Gonnor,  wife  of  Richard  I,  59. 
Gosselin,  see  Joslin. 
Goumay  (Seine-Inf.),  78,  153. 
Gradulf,  abbot  of  Saint-Wandrille,  261, 

262,  267. 
Grandcamp  (Calvados),  63. 
Gravaria,  gravarius,  40,  47,  63,  151,  177, 

182,  288. 
Graverend  d'fivrecy,  167. 
Gravina  (province  of  Bari),  234. 
Gray,  H.  L.,  298. 
Graye  (Calvados),  63. 
Grenoble  (Isere),  MSS.  at,  72,  82,  100- 

103,  246. 
Grestain  (Eure),  abbey,  245. 
Grimald  du  Plessis,  16,  17,  271. 
Gross,  C,  188. 


INDEX 


357 


Grumo  (province  of  Ban),  233. 
Gu6rin,  C,  337. 

Guernsey,  7,  33,  43,  69,  185,  273. 
Guildford  (co.  Surrey),  235. 
Guilhiermoz,  P.,  19-23,  193,  281. 
Guntard,  abbot  of  Jumieges,  292. 
Guy  Carcois,  291. 

  notary,  52,  255. 

  count  of  Ponthieu,  18. 

 de  Sable,  134,  140,  142,  145,  147- 

149,  210. 

Haimo,  butler,  180,  335. 

  d'fivrecy,  17. 

 de  Falaise,  304. 

  vicomte,  263. 

Hainfara,  28-30,  279. 
Haino villa,  63. 

Hall,  Hubert,  53,  108,  114,  113. 
Halphen,  L.,  44, 46, 47,  56, 123, 136, 137, 

230,  316. 
Hamelin  de  I'ficluse,  294. 

 loricarius,  306,  307. 

  de  la  Mayenne,  294. 

Hamfred,  127. 

Harcourt,  L.  W.  Vernon,  49,  51,  58,  97, 

99,  162,  165,  275. 
Hardwicke  (co.  Oxford),  301. 
Harfleur  (Seine-Inf.),  29,  253,  254. 
Hastings  (co.  Sussex),  79,  121. 
Haur6au,  B.,  131. 
Haute  justice,  28,  89. 
Hauville  (Eure),  7,  162. 
H6auville  (Manche),  71,  100,  102,  134, 

13s,  140,  141,  162. 
Hector  of  Chartres,  160. 
Helleville  (Manche),  102. 
Hdmarc,  281,  283. 
Helto,  constable,  202. 
Hemmeon,  M.  de  W.,  49. 
Hennequeville  (Calvados),  253,  254. 
Henry,  171. 

 d'Aigneaux,  167. 

  bishop  of  Bayeux,  160,  172,  213, 

335- 

 del  Broc,  299. 

  son  of  Corbin,  167. 


Henry  I,  king  of  England  and  duke  of 
Normandy,  29,  31,  37,  63-65,  71, 
78,  79,  83,  127,  134,  137,  139- 
142,  146-148,  150-153,  155,  170, 
17S1  176,  192,  194,  202-210,  214, 
226,  23s,  236,  244,  285,  291; 
charters  of,  11-14,  42,  64,  65,  68, 
69,  77,  81,  85-87,  89,  90,  93-96, 
98-107,  III,  118,  135,  140,  142, 
144,  190,  197,  221,  223,  277,  280, 
293-320,  337,  338;  Norman  itin- 
erary of,  309-320;  Normandy 
under,  85-122,  126,  166. 

  II,  king  of  England,  duke  of  Nor- 
mandy and  Aquitaine,  count  of 
Anjou,  8,  22,  23,  28,  31,  40,  48, 
74.  93,  94,  "3,  ii4,  121,  130- 
132,  146,  147,  150,  151,  155,  323, 
327;  charters  of,  12,  13,  15,  59, 
81, 94, 96, 107, 109, 116-118, 120, 
130-135,  140,  144,  148,  154,  158, 
161-169,  173,  182, 186-191,  197- 
202,  205,  207,  208,  213-217,  221, 
235-237,  249,  252,  270,  304,  337; 
early  legislation  of,  329-333;  jury 
imder,  196-238;  Normandy  un- 
der, 156-195,  334,  335,  337,  338. 

  Ill,  king  of  England,  189. 

  V,  243. 

  VI,  243. 

  count  of  Eu,  293. 

 abbot  of  Fecamp,  129,  134,  219, 

229,  326. 

 de  Ferrieres,  303. 

  I,  king  of  France,  45,  49,  268,  269, 

272,  275. 

  of  Huntingdon,  331. 

  de  Longchamp,  229. 

  the  marshal,  134,  152. 

  de  Moult,  328. 

 of  Pisa,  cardinal  priest  of  SS.  Nereo 

ed  Achilleo,  legate,  173. 

  de  la  Pommeraye,  88,  89. 

  prevot,  108. 

  de  Richebourg,  108. 

  the  Lion,  duke  of  Saxony,  183. 

  de  Tilly,  335. 

 earl  of  Warwick,  285,  324. 


358 


INDEX 


Henry,  bishop  of  Winchester,  124,  303. 

  the  Young  King,  183. 

Henton  (co.  Oxford),  332. 
Herbert,  96. 

  bishop  of  Avranches,  127. 

  count  of  Maine,  256. 

  '  Maloei,'  291. 

  Poisson,  197. 

Herfast,  chanceDor  of  William  I,  51-53. 
Herils  (Calvados),  224. 
Herluin,  founder  of  Bee,  7,  10,  38,  266, 
272. 

  priest  of  Dives,  321. 

Hermann  '  Anglicus,'  328. 

Herouville  (Calvados),  298. 

Hertfordshire,  301. 

Hervey,  archdeacon  of  Lisieux,  321. 

  son  of  Richard,  291. 

Hiesmois,  42,  90,  186. 

Hildebert,  bishop  of  Le  Mans  and  arch- 
bishop of  Tours,  131,  294. 

  abbot  of  Mont-Saint-Michel,  59. 

HUduin,  vicomle  of  Meulan,  256. 

Hinschius,  P.,  227. 

Hippeau,  C,  96,  212,  247,  287. 

Hoel,  291. 

HofTmann,  M.,  227. 

Honor,  17-19. 

Honorius  II,  Pope,  300. 

Hospital,  Knights  of  the,  133. 

Hospiles  (holes),  254,  256,  259,  262,  327. 

Hostiarius,  51,  77,  163. 

Household,  Capetian,  49;  imperial,  50; 
of  the  Norman  dukes,  49-58,  77,  114- 
121,  192,  275. 

Hubert  de  Port,  22. 

 de  Ryes,  22. 

Hugh,  291. 

  d'AUemagne,  97. 

  archdeacon,  7. 

  de  BardevUle,  261. 

  Bardulf,  186. 

  bishop  of  Bayeux,  17,  256,  259,  260, 

267,  272. 
  de  Bee,  121. 

  Bigod,  seneschal,  8,  13,  120,  300, 

303- 

 de  Bricqueville,  21. 


Hugh,  abbot  of  Cerisy,  68. 

  chancellor  of  Richard  II,  52. 

  earl  of  Chester,  236,  338. 

  de  Clefs  (Cleers),  146-148. 

  de  Conteville,  328. 

  de  Cressy,  constable  of  Rouen,  327, 

334- 

  bishop  of  fivreux,  256. 

  of  Flavigny,  monk  of  Dijon  and 

chronicler,  67,  74-76,  79,  266, 

267,  286. 
  Gohun,  289. 

  de  Goumay,  92,  166,  177, 185,  219, 

3ii>  325,  326. 

  de  GuUleio,  294. 

  d'lchelunt,  289. 

  d'lvry,  butler,  50,  51. 

  bishop  of  Lisieux,  321. 

  de  Longchamp,  185. 

  I  de  Montfort,  constable,  51. 

  II  de  Montfort,  95,  96,  296,  315. 

  Mursard,  69,  289,  290. 

  Painel,  69. 

  Payen,  63. 

  de  Revers,  63. 

  of  Amiens,  archbishop  of  Rouen, 

109,  120,  121,  125,  129,  130,  138, 
146-148,  153,  172,  220,  226,  229, 
299>  302,  317. 

  de  SorquainviUe,  262. 

 dean  of  Saint-Martin,  147. 

 •  TeUlard,  321. 

  archbishop  of  Tours,  133. 

  vicomte,  91. 

  son  of  William,  328. 

Humbert,  monk,  286. 

Humphrey  de  Adevilla,  102. 

  d'Aubigny,  102,  294. 

  de  Beuzeville,  139. 

 de  Bohun,  seneschal,  22,  112,  121, 

162,  302,  303. 

  fitz  Odo,  162. 

  '  vetulus,'  263,  275. 

Hundul,  son  of  Gosman,  261,  262. 

Hungerford  (co.  Berks),  295. 

Hunloph  of  Mesmoulins,  287,  288. 

Hunnington  (co.  Lincoln),  236. 

Hunspath,  287,  288. 


INDEX 


359 


Iger  de  Lohf,  337. 

Ignauville  (Seine-Inf.),  287,  288. 

Ilbert,  marshal,  51. 

Imams,  legate,  154. 

Imbart  de  la  Tour,  36. 

Immunity,  25-27,  89,  140,  250-252. 

Ingouville  (Calvados),  328. 

Ingouville  (Seine-Inf.),  252. 

Innocent  II,  Pope,  91, 106,  203,  317,  318. 

Inquest,  sworn,  47,  56,  58,  83,  105,  149, 
150,  155,  169,  191,  329-333;  inquest 
of  109 1,  see  Consuetudines  et  iusiicie; 
Bayeux  inquest  of  1133,  15,  16,  20,  23, 
85,  109,  202,  212,  222;  Bayeux  in- 
quests under  Geoffrey  and  Henry  II, 
204-215;  Inquest  of  Sheriffs,  160,  330; 
other  inquests  under  Henry  II,  8,  9, 
24,  44,  159-161,  188,  191,  215-222, 
243,  285,  337-339;  under  Philip  Au- 
gustus, 173.    See  Jury. 

Investiture,  73. 

Ireland,  49. 

Isembert,  bemer,  82. 

  chaplain,  and  abbot  of  La  Trinity, 

51,  262,  268,  270,  275. 

Isigny  (Calvados),  213. 

Italy,  Normans  in,  23,  61;  sworn  inquest 
in,  227,  232-234;  Italian  (?)  ship- 
master of  Henry  I,  122.   See  Sicily. 

lurea  regalis,  160,  243. 

lustaldus,  clerk,  261. 

Ives,  or  Ivo,  bishop  of  Chartres,  79. 

  TaUlebois,  70,  285. 

Ivry  (Eure),  245. 

Jamison,  Evelyn,  23,  232. 
Jenkinson,  H.,  195,  242. 
Jersey,  271. 

Jerusalem,  266,  268,  269,  273. 

John,  count  of  Alenfon,  336.  See  John, 

count  of  Ponthieu. 
  bishop  of  Avranches  and  arch- 
bishop of  Rouen,  18,  272,  337. 

 of  Beaumont,  92. 

  de  Cartot,  335. 

  cellarer,  289. 

 of  Coutances,  archdeacon  of  Rouen, 

ass- 


John  Cumin,  167. 

  king  of  England,  187, 189, 190, 193- 

195,  198,  242,  243. 
 d'firaines,  archdeacon  of  the  Hies- 

mois,  184,  335,  336. 
  abbot  of  Fecamp,  29,  57,  258,  262, 

263. 

 de  Gavray,  323. 

  Grossus,  291. 

  knight,  291. 

  archdeacon  of  Lisieux,  173. 

  bishop  of  Lisieux  and  justiciar  of 

Henry  I,  87-90,  92,  94-100,  107, 
no,  129,  130,  146,  163,  294,  297, 
299,  302,  30s,  307,  321. 

  de  Lunda,  92. 

  of  Marmoutier,  128,  132,  155,  193. 

  marshal,  307. 

  son  of  Odo  of  Bayeux,  294,  296. 

  Peril,  172. 

  count  of  Ponthieu,  91,  328,  334. 

  Rubi,  295. 

 of  Salisbury,  330-332. 

  bishop  of  Seez,  13,  96,  299,  300, 

306,  314,  316. 

  usher,  299. 

  treasurer  of  York,  331, 

Jordan  de  I'Epesse,  172. 

  de  la  Lande,  180,  335,  336. 

 de  Sai,  297,  298. 

  de  Sully,  321. 

  Taisson,  167,  172,  220,  323. 

Joslin  of  Bailleul,  307. 

  succentor  of  Bayeux,  225. 

  Rosel  or  Rusel,  326,  335. 

  of  Tours,  138,  145,  146. 

 vicomte,  263. 

Joui  (Aisne),  45. 
Jouvelin-Thibault,  J.,  68. 
Judith,  wife  of  Richard  II,  59. 
Juhel,  92. 

Jumieges  (Seine-Inf.),  abbey,  7,  8, 17,  25, 
27,  28,  37,  42,  49,  50,  53,  59,  69,  71,  87, 
91,  92,  109,  173,  229,  244,  247,  251, 
253,  257,  265,  272,  273,  290-292. 
Abbots:  Guntard,  Urse,  William. 

Junguene,  archbishop  of  Dol,  261,  262, 
275. 


36o 


INDEX 


Jurisdiction,  baronial,  22,  24-30,  89,  97, 
103,  150,  166,  172,  184,  187,  228-230, 
278,  279;  ducal,  27-30,  89,  97,  170- 
174,  i86-i8g,  278,  279;  ecclesiastical, 
30-37,  104,  170-174,  185,  321-323, 
327.  337,  341-  See  Courts,  Curia, 
Inquest. 

Jury,  149,  150,  169,  188,  189,  195-238, 
329-332- 

Justices,  57,  83,  87-105,  148-150,  163- 
169,  173,  179-188,  194,  199,  205-219, 
221,  228,  323-328,  334-336- 

Justiciar,  chief,  57,  58,  87-99,  ii4,  127, 
146,  155,  163-166,  189,  323-326. 

Kent,  235. 

Knight,  equipment  of,  20;  knight's  fee, 
8-19,  24,  i86,  192;  knight  service, 
7-24. 

Korting,  G.,  268,  269. 
Kroell,  M.,  26. 

La  Borderie,  A.  de,  261. 
La  CarboniSre  (Seine-Inf.),  255. 
La  Cava  (province  of  Salerno),  234. 
La  CroisOIe  (Eure),  228. 
La  Croix  (Manche),  7. 
La  Ferte-en-Brai  (Seine-Inf.),  153,  312. 
La  Ferte-Fresnel  (Ome),  313. 
Lagouelle,  H.,  7. 
La  Haie-Pesnel  (Manche),  342. 
La  Hougue  (Manche),  124. 
Laigle  (Ome),  312,  313. 
La  Lande  (Manche),  21. 
Laleu  (Ome),  299,  301. 
La  Luzeme  (Manche),  abbey,  338,  340, 
342. 

Lancashire,  235. 

La  Neuve-Lire  (Eure),  297. 

Lanfranc,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  30, 

32,  57- 
Laon  (Aisne),  87,  175. 
Lappyenberg,  J.  M.,  26. 
Larderer,  116,  182. 
Larson,  L.  M.,  55. 
La  Rue,  G.  de,  246. 
Latouche,  R.,  48,  80. 
Lavidande  (Manche),  21. 


Law,  Nonnan,  4, 182, 189,  194,  243,  277. 

See  Assize,  Consueiudines  ei  iusticie. 

Courts,  Jury,  Legislation,  Tris  Ancien 

Ccndumier. 
Lawrence,  archdeacon,  324. 
Le  Bosguet  (Eure),  70. 
Le  Brasseur,  P.,  281. 
Lecacheux,  P.,  243,  248. 
L€chaud6  d'Anisy,  197,  202,  221,  247, 

286. 

Le  Faulq  (Calvados),  224. 

Legates,  papal,  154;  see  Albericus, 
Conon,  Henry  of  Pisa,  Imarus. 

Legislation  of  Norman  dukes,  4, 6,  85, 86, 
114,  120,  150,  158,  159,  169-171,  198- 
201,  211,  212,  218-220,  238,  276,  277, 

327,  329-333- 
Legras,  H.,  39,  48,  161,  242. 
Le  Hardy,  G.,  62,  297. 
Le  Hericher,  E.,  337,  339,  342. 
Le  Homme  (Calvados),  63. 
Le  Homme  (Manche,  now  L'He-Marie), 

46,  274. 
Le  Houlme  (Ome),  34. 
Le  Mans  (Sarthe),  48,  146, 147,  205,  209, 

210,  316;  chapter  of,  81,  245.  Bish- 
ops: Hildebert,  William. 

 La  Couture,  abbey,  304. 

  Saint- Victor,  priory,  245. 

  Saint- Vincent,  abbey,  69. 

Le  Marais- Vernier  (Eure),  229. 

Lenoir,  Dom  J.,  218,  246,  247,  250,  255- 

258,  288,  297. 
Le  Pre,  near  Rouen  (Seine-Inf.),  118, 144. 
Le  Prevost,  A.,  12,  15,  46,  140,  242,  247, 

248,  257,  265,  296. 
Leregant,  133. 
Les  Andelys  (Eure),  182. 
Le  Sap  (Ome),  172,  173,  219. 
Lessay  (Manche),  abbey  of,  33,  132, 135, 

138,  244,  315. 
Le  Val  de  Port  (Calvados),  224. 
Lexartum,  259. 

Liebermann,  F.,  3,  30,  37,  48,  55,  75, 114, 

175,  176,  278-281,  339. 
Lieurey  (Calvados),  302. 
Lieu'vin,  108,  181,  186. 
Lievres  (Manche),  271. 


INDEX 


361 


Lillebonne  (Seine-Inf.),  81,  116;  council 

of,  30-35,  37,  46,  48,  SS,  104,  170, 

276-279,  281,  310. 
Limoges  (Haute-Vienne),  214. 
Limpiville  (Seine-Inf.),  255. 
Lincoln,  81,  125,  126,  235-237,  320. 

Bishops:  Alexander,  Robert. 
Lions-la-Foret  (Eure),  iig,  121,  125, 

286,  320. 

Lire  (Eure) ,  abbey,  10,  72,  245,  246,  297, 

313,  335- 

Lisiard,  bishop  of  S6ez,  172. 

Lisieux  (Calvados),  69,  124,  129,  134, 
136,  141,  143,  163,  168,  206,  291,  292, 
309,  313.  321-323;  bishop  of,  8, 14,  36, 
57,  66,  76,  no,  153,  181,  187,  211,  274, 
321,  322,  342;  chapter  of,  59,  173; 
councils  at,  32,  36,  38,  86,  309,  310; 
treasurer  of,  130.  Bishops:  Amulf, 
GUbert,  Hugh,  John,  Ralph,  William 
dc  Pad. 

 leprosery,  172. 

 Saint-Desir,  abbey,  27,  133,  228, 

245- 

Littleton,  Sir  Thomas,  211. 
Liveries,  court,  114-119. 
Loders  (co.  Dorset),  82,  loi,  243. 
London,  48,  242,  317,  330,  331.  Bishops: 

Gilbert  FoUot,  Gilbert  the  Universal. 

  British  Museum,  MSS.  79,  82,  loi- 

104, 122, 174, 179,  243,  298,  309. 

  Public  Record  Office,  90,  94,  197, 

203,  221,  242,  243,  248,  263,  303. 

  St.  Paul's,  MSS.  of,  89,  116,  161. 

Longchamps  (Eure),  286. 
Longueville,  184,  335. 
LongueviUe  (Manche),  21. 
Longueville,  Sainte-Foi  de  (Seine-Inf.), 

priory,  81,  310. 
Longueville  (Autils),    Saint- Pierre  de 

(Eure),  priory  of,  59. 
Lonlai  (Orne),  abbey,  70,  77,  245. 
Loricarii,  119,  306,  307. 
Lorraine,  175,  176. 
Lot,  F.,  4,  5,  36,  249,  257,  314. 
Louis  the  Pious,  king  and  emperor,  25. 
Louis  VI,  king  of  France,  310,  311. 
 VII,  I2S,  130,  143.  IS4,  205. 


Louis  X,  190. 

 abbot  of  Saint-Georges  de  Bocher- 

ville,  92. 
Louvieres  (Calvados),  147,  211. 
Luchaire,  A.,  27,  48,  49,  311,  313,  314, 
316. 

Luchon  (Calvados),  207. 
Lucia,  countess  of  Chester,  236. 

  wife  of  Jordan  de  Sai,  297. 

Lucius  II,  Pope,  15,  130,  202-205,  223. 

  Ill,  Pope,  337. 

Luders,  W.,  52. 

Luke,  butler,  92,  336. 

  son  of  Herve,  223,  224. 

Mabel,  wife  of  Ralph  de  Mortemer,  291. 

MabiUe,  E.,  136. 

Mabillon,  Dom  J.,  257. 

Maeelina,  abbess  of  Saint-Amand,  93. 

M agister  militum,  51. 

Magna  Carta,  185,  190. 

Maine,  80;  institutions  of,  27,  48,  82, 
146,  232,  330.  Counts:  Herbert, 
Robert  Curthose. 

Maingisus,  bishop  of  Avranches,  255, 256. 

Maitland,  F.  W.,  3,  5-7,  22-24,  29,  37, 
55,  56,  158,  165,  173,  185,  187,  194, 
196,  198,  220,  224,  227,  234,  238,  277- 
280,  329,  331. 

Malassis,  near  Gasny  (Eure),  312. 

Mailing  (co.  Kent),  abbey,  235. 

Manasses  Bisset,  seneschal,  162,  236. 

Manche,  archives  of  the,  21,  59,  82,  93, 
100-104,  127,  128,  134,  138,  142,  147, 
148,  168,  172,  186,  187,  221,  222,  244- 
246,  270,  273,  280,  294,  296,  311,  315, 
319,  323,  324,  327,  336,  338. 

Mangon,  Pierre,  100,  246. 

ManneviUe  (Seine-Inf.),  255. 

Manonisvilla,  255. 

Mansi,  Cardinal,  277. 

Mantes  (Seine-et-Oise),  46. 

Manteyer,  G.  de,  143. 

Mantois,  316. 

Mark,  281. 

Markets  and  fairs,  39,  42,  49,  69,  70,  72, 
80,  93,  loi,  181,  182,  188,  191,  259, 
262.  286,  287,  289,  324, 337,  338. 


362 


INDEX 


Marlborough  (co.  Wilts),  126. 
Marmoutier  (Indre-et-Loire) ,  abbey,  18, 

32,  59,  69,  72,  134,  141,  24s,  247,  314, 

316. 

Marolles  (Calvados),  172. 

Maromme  (Seine-Inf.),  325. 

Marshal,  51,  89,  118,  119,  121,  152,  162, 

182,  192. 
Martene,  Dom  E.,  277,  281. 
Martin,  scribe,  88. 
Marx,  J.,  265,  267,  270. 
Mathan  (Calvados),  88;    Marquis  de, 

246. 

Matilda  d'Avranches,  lady  of  Le  Sap, 
218,  219,  339. 

  countess  of  Chester,  236. 

 empress,  124,  130,  132,  136,  144, 

147,  151,  152,  222,  306,  316. 
  queen,  wife  of  Henry  I  of  England, 

310. 

  queen,  wife  of  Stephen  of  Blois, 

124. 

  queen,  wife  of  WiUiam  the  Con- 
queror, 20,  so,  52,  54,  68,  106, 
279. 

Matthew  de  Gerardivilla,  325. 

 marshal,  328. 

  du  Moutier,  326. 

Mauduit  chamberlainship,  113. 
Mauger  de  Beuzeval,  95. 

 of  Corbeil,  275. 

Maurice,  108. 

  '  pugil,'  221. 

  '  de  sigillo,'  162. 

Maurilius,  archbishop  of  Rouen,  19. 
Mayer,  E.,  46,  232. 
Mayet  (Sarthe),  129. 
Meister,  A.,  25. 
Merlet,  R.,  108. 
Merton  priory  (co.  Surrey),  88. 
Mesnil-Don  (Calvados),  63. 
Mesnil-Drey  (Manche),  171,  218. 
Mesnil-Eudes  (Calvados),  8,  130. 
Mesnil-Josselin  (Eure),  312. 
Mesnil-Mauger  (Calvados),  322. 
Metearius,  19. 

Meulan  (Seine-et-Oise),  29,  93,  150,  247, 
256.   Counts:  Galeran,  Robert. 


Meulan,  Saint-Nicaise,  priory,  295. 
Michael,  bishop  of  Avranches,  22. 

  abbot  of  Pr6aux,  166,  323,  324. 

Miles  of  Gloucester,  303,  305,  317. 

Mileto  (province  of  Catanzaro),  233. 

Mills,  ducal,  39,  43,  117. 

Minislri,  100,  loi,  152. 

Mint,  ducal,  106,  113,  256,  281. 

Mirebeau  (Vienne),  133. 

Moeller,  C,  75. 

Monasteries,  control  by  duke,  36,  125; 

as  holders  of  immunities  and  consuetu- 

dines,  25-30;  military  service  of,  8-14; 

rights  of  bishops  over,  337-343. 
Mondeville  (Calvados),  252. 
Moneyer,  duke's,  152,  280,  281. 
Montbouin  (Calvados),  63. 
Montebourg  (Manche),  abbey,  9,  80,  81, 

93,  100-103,  125,  134,  135,  139,  244. 

Abbot:  Robert. 
MontfarviUe  (Manche),  loi. 
Montfaucon,  B.  de,  281,  340. 
Montfort  (Eure),  72,  174,  224,  230,  315, 

327,  334,  336. 
Montgaroult  (Ome),  151. 
Montivilliers  (Seine-Inf.),  abbey,  9,  10, 

29,43,  60,  245,  251,  260,  266,  272,  273, 

275- 

Montmartin  (Calvados),  2091 
Montmorel  (Manche),  abbey,  339,  340. 

Prior:  Ralph. 
Montpinfon  (Calvados),  16. 
Montreuil-Bellay  (Maine-et-Loire),  131, 

137,  147- 

Montreuil-sur-Mer  (Pas-de-Calais),  45. 

Mont-Saint-Michel  (Manche),  abbey, 
7,  9,  21,  22,  24,  26,  27,  32-35,  59, 
69,  71,  74,  78,  128,  153,  161,  191,  227, 
228,  244,  247,  248,  261,  273,  277,  337- 
341,  343.  Abbots:  Hildebert,  Robert 
of  Torigni. 

Morin,  Dom  G.,  66. 

Morin  Planchun,  327. 

Morris,  W.  A.,  46. 

Morsalines  (Manche),  102. 

Mortain  (Manche),  124,  129,  168,  294, 
314;  count  of,  29,  48,  54,  57,  127,  187. 
Counts:  Robert,  Stephen,  William. 


INDEX 


363 


Mortain,  Dames  Blanches,  abbey,  127, 
340- 

  Notre-Dame,  priory,  126,  340. 

  Saint-fivroul,    collegiate  church, 

126,  342. 

Mortemer  (Seine-Inf.),  abbey,  134,  182, 

205,  222,  319.   Abbot:  William. 
MouUns  (Ome),  43. 
Moult  (Calvados),  328. 
Moutons  (Manche),  convent,  127,  340. 
Muriel  d'AmbUe,  262. 

N'  (?),  bishop  of  Meaux,  171. 
Neal,  or  Nigel,  41. 

  d'Aubigny,  12,  90,  294,  295,  311. 

  monk,  294. 

  seneschal  of  Mortain,  i68,  185. 

  d'Oilly,  63. 

  nephew  of  Roger,  bishop  of  Salis- 
bury, and  bishop  of  Ely,  108, 
114,  120,  229. 

  vicomtes  of  Saint-Sauveur,  7,  46,  57, 

103,  256,  263,  274,  276. 

  Wireker,  181. 

Neaufles-Saint-Martin  (Eure),  32, 46,  70, 
310. 

Neubourg  (Eure),  312. 
Neufchatel  (Seine-Inf.),  184,  334. 
NeuUly  (Calvados),  213. 
Neville  (Seine-Inf.),  260,  262. 
Newton-on-Trent  (co.  Lincoln),  236. 
Nicaea,  266. 

Nicholas  d'Estouteville,  219,  325. 

  abbot  of  Saint-Ouen,  68,  70. 

  des  Veys,  167,  323. 

Niese,  H.,  227,  232. 
Nigel,  see  Neal. 

Nogent-le-Rotrou  (Eure-et-Loir),  245. 
Nonancourt  (Eure),  140,  144,  149,  151, 
152. 

Norgate,  Kate,  128,  130,  174,  316. 
Norman,  archdeacon  of  Lisieux,  173, 

321,  322. 
  Peignard,  291. 

Normandy,  feudaUsm  in,  5-30;  Prank- 
ish institutions  in,  5,  25,  48,  54,  196, 
197,  227;  local  government  in,  45-48; 
municipal  institutions  of,  48,  49;  in 


the  Plantagenet  empire,  156;  rela- 
tions with  England,  see  England; 
with  France,  iee  France;  Scandinavian 
influence  on,  5,  28,  65,  279,  281. 
See  especially  Church,  Courts,  Duke, 
Exchequer,  Law.  Dukes:  Geoffrey, 
Henry  I,  II,  John,  Richard  I,  II,  III, 
IV  (Coeur  de  Lion),  Robert  I,  II, 
Stephen,  Wilham  Longsword,  William 
the  Conqueror,  William  Rufus. 

Nostell  (co.  York),  314. 

Notre-Dame-du-Desert  (Eure),  priory, 
317- 

Notre-Dame-du-Parc  (Seine-Inf.),  70. 

Odard,  seneschal  of  Meulan,  295. 
Odilo,  abbot  of  Cluny,  275. 
Odo  of  Bayeux,  99. 

  bishop  of  Bayeux,  15-18,  22,  34, 

66-68,  75,  76,  150,  201,  204,  208, 
212,  225,  226,  292. 

  count  of  Brittany,  57. 

  chancellor,  52. 

  constable,  50. 

  of  Falaise,  163. 

  hostiarius,  163. 

  moneyer,  281. 

  sheriff  of  Pembroke,  305. 

  abbot  of  Saint-fitienne,  34,  94-96, 

294. 

  seneschal,  83. 

  son  of  Thurstin  du  Cotentin,  68. 

 de  Vaac,  336. 

  vicomte,  63. 

Odoin  de  Malpalu,  Serjeant,  117. 

Offranville  (Seine-Inf.),  291. 

Oise,  archives  of  the,  67,  317. 

Oissel-sur-Seine  (Seine-Inf.),  260,  262. 

OUver  d'Aubigny,  139. 

Omont,  H.,  201,  246,  247. 

Orbec  (Calvados),  46. 

Ordeal,  31,  34,  35,  56,  58,  88,  267. 

Ordericus  Vitalis,  18,  62,  64,  65,  78-80, 

86-88, 113, 128, 132,  241,  268,  270,  272. 
Orford  (co.  Suffolk),  235. 
Orne,  archives  of  the,  12,  19,  24,  46, 

173.  179.  187,  228,  244-246,  315,  328, 

335,  336. 


364 


INDEX 


Osbern,  Osbert,  archdeacon  of  Bayeux, 
34- 

  abbot  of  Bernai,  292. 

  de  Cailly,  92,  145. 

  clerk,  332. 

  Giffard,  77. 

  son  of  Gosman,  262. 

  de  la  Heuse,  constable  of  Cher- 
bourg, 152,  167,  180. 

  de-Pont-de  I'Arche,  io8,  114. 

  priest,  70. 

  seneschal,  50,  51,  263,  274,  275. 

  archdeacon  of  York,  331. 

Osmund  d'Arri,  180. 
  chancellor  of  William  the  Con- 
queror, S3,  54. 

  Drengot,  268. 

  Vasce,  171,  218,  238. 

Ouen,  sons  of,  262. 

  Postel,  92. 

Ouistreham  (Calvados),  6g. 
Ourvdlle  (Seine-Inf.),  260. 
Outlaws,  188,  279,  324. 
Oxford,  Bodleian  Library,  298. 

Pagus,  46. 
Palestine  tax,  159. 
Palgrave,  Sir  Francis,  234,  265. 
Pantler,  pantry,  ducal,  at  Rouen,  117, 
182. 

Parage,  22,  159. 
Paris,  G.,  269-271. 
 Master,  335. 

Paris,  330;  Archives  Nationales,  19,  31, 
S8,  59,  89,  93,  94,  101-103,  134,  147, 
152,  170,  218,  243,  246,  272,  273,  29s, 

297.  312.  325- 

  Bibliotheque  Mazarine,  MSS.  at, 

68,  318. 

  Bibliotheque  Xationale,  MSS.  at, 

S-7, 12,  15,  19,  27,  29,  30,  32,  35, 
37,  42,  46,  52,  53,  58,  60,  63,  68- 
70,  72,  80-82,  87,  89,  91,  93,  94, 
96,  98,  100-103,  105,  106,  108- 
iio,  117,  126,  127,  130-134,  139, 
141,  143,  144,  148,  152,  161,  162,  j 
165,  172,  173.  179,  182,  188,  193, 1 
197,  201,  202,  218,  219,  223,  227, 1 


243-248,  250,  253,  255-258,  273, 
274,  281,  285,  288-292,  295-300, 
302,  304,  305,  307,  310,  312,  318, 
319,  321,  324-327,  334-336,  338. 

Paris,  Bibliotheque  Sainte-Genevi&ve,4i. 
98,  log,  247. 

  Jesuits'  Library,  246,  297. 

  Saint-Magloire,  abbey,  45. 

  Saint-Martin-des-Champs,  245. 

Paschal  II,  Pope,  66. 

Patrick,  earl  of  SaUsbury,  219. 

Patti  (province  of  Messina),  234. 

Pavilly  (Seine-Inf.),  256. 

Payne  Beauchamp,  299. 

  de  Clairvaux,  139,  145,  209,  210- 

  de  GranvUIe,  322. 

  fitz  John,  303. 

  de  M6da\y,  91. 

Peasants,  revolt  of.  In  996,  182. 

Penli  (Seine-Inf.),  259. 

Perche,  45.    Count:  Rotrou. 

Perrieres  (Calvados),  priory,  173. 

Perrot,  E.,  89,  161,  187. 

Peter,  108. 

  of  Bassonville,  291. 

  of  Blois,  182. 

  Brown,  iii. 

  abbot  of  Cluny,  154. 

  hermit,  273. 

  squire,  291. 

Petit-Dutaillis,  C,  48. 

Petitville  (Seine-Inf.),  260,  261. 

Petra,  G.  de,  23. 

PevTel  de  Beauchamp,  299. 

Pfister,  C,  44,  257,  265. 

Philip  I,  king  of  France,  29, 44, 45, 49,  52, 

64,  72,  79- 
  n  (Augustus),  12,  178,  180,  185, 

193,  195,  243,  336. 
  d'Harcourt,  bishop  of  Bayeux,  66, 

109,  129,  137,  146,  147,  149,  153, 

167,  203-216,  222-225. 
  d'.\lencon,  archbishop  of  Rouen, 

244. 

  brother  of  Vitalis,  167. 

Philippa  Rosel,  174. 
Pickering  (co.  York),  235. 
Pierreval  (Seine-Inf.),  70. 


INDEX 


Pigeon,  E.  A.,  19,  337,  339,  340. 

Pila tenses,  92. 

Pilgrims,  28,  35. 

Pimpeme  (co.  Dorset),  295. 

Pincerna,  see  Butler. 

Pipe  Rolls,  40,  107,  114,  IIS,  121,  158, 

177,  184,  188,  191,  237. 
Pippin  of  Tours,  138,  145,  220. 
Pirenne,  H.,  44,  53. 

Pissy  (Seine-Inf.),  253,  25^. 
Placila  treuge,  37. 

Pleas,  of  the  crown  or  sword,  28,  29,  89, 
104,  IS3,  186-188,  191,  278,  279; 
various,  182. 

Plessis-Grimoult  (Calvados),  16,  17,  129, 
244. 

Plow,  peace  of  the,  28,  65,  187. 
Poissy  (Seine-et-Oise),  45. 
PoUard,  A.  F.,  185. 

Pollock,  Sir  Frederick,  see  Maitland, 
F.W. 

Pontarlier  (Doubs),  75. 
Pontaudemer  (Eure),  127,  168,  244,  315. 
Pont-de-l'Arche  (Eure),  81,  82. 
Ponthieu,  90,  91,  97,  98,  124.  Counts: 

Enguerran,  Guy,  John,  William. 
Pontoise  (Seine-et-Oise),  245. 
Pont-Saint-Pierre  (Eure),  313. 
Poole,  R.  L.,  40,  106,  III,  114-116,  131, 

171,  174-177- 
Porchester  (co.  Hants),  113. 
Por6e,  E.,  249. 
Port,  C,  205. 

Portsmouth  (co.  Hants),  125,  312,  315, 
317- 

Possession,  protection  of,  89,  104,  189. 
Poupardin,  R.,  136,  137,  247,  316. 
Powicke,  F.  M.,  22,  28,  37,  46,  89,  105, 
119,  123,  146,  151,  157,  160,  161,  176- 

178,  187,  191,  193,  231,  232,  338,  339. 
Pr6aux  (Eure),  abbey,  7,  10,  17,  29,  30, 

50,  70-72,  134,  148,  166,  172,  226,  228, 
229,  244,  273,  279,  324,  325.  Abbots: 
Ansfred,  Michael. 

Pr6aux  (Seine-Inf.),  153. 

Preisia,  186. 

Prentout,  H.,  4,  5,  26,  39,  232,  241,  250. 
Presentation,  171-1741 179)  218, 332. 333- 


Provost,  M.,  i6o. 

Frivol,  prevole,  41-44,  47,  105,  106,  151, 

177,  182. 
Procurator,  51,  168. 
Prou,  M.,  44,  48,  49,  52,  72,  136. 
Pseudo-Isidore,  30. 

Quatre-Puits  (Calvados),  63. 
Quettehou  (Manche),  63. 
Quillebeuf  (Eure),  229. 

R.,  son  of  Richard,  94. 

Rabasse,  M.,  6. 

Rabel,  268,  275. 

  son  of  Joslin,  92. 

  of  Tancarville,  94,  109,  300,  302. 

Radford,  L.  B.,  330,  331. 

Radulfus,  see  Ralph. 

Raginaldus,  Rainald,  see  Reginald. 

Rainier,  abbot,  262. 

Ralph  fitz  Anser6,  69,  90-92. 

  son  of  Ansfred,  95. 

  d'Arri,  chancellor  of  Robert  Curt- 
hose,  67,  74. 

 de  Beaumont,  92. 

  de  Bee,  70. 

  du  Bosc-Lehard,  92. 

  butler,  297. 

  Calcaterra,  92. 

  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  294,  295, 

313,315;  Ralph,  abbot  of 

Seez. 

  de  Conches,  68. 

  de  Courlandon,  63. 

  bishop  of  Coutances,  287. 

  de  Diceto,  176,  193. 

  de  Duclair,  291. 

  priest  of  fipaignes,  324. 

  de  Fleury,  canon  of  Lisieux,  322. 

  de  Fougeres,  311. 

— ; —  son  of  Fulbert,  97. 

  Glaber,  266. 

  de  Grainville,  289. 

  de  la  Haie,  335. 

  of  Hastings,  iii. 

  son  of  Herluin,  20. 

 de  Hotot,  96. 


366 


INDEX 


Ralph  d'lvry,  i8. 

  de  Juvigny,  96. 

  de  Lisieux,  clerk,  328. 

  Maisnier,  328. 

  du  Marche,  108. 

  de  Marchia,  cook,  116. 

  marshal,  291. 

  Martel,  328. 

  moneyer,  280. 

  prior  of  Montmorel,  339. 

  de  Mortemer,  291,  292. 

  de  la  Mouche,  171,  218. 

  Mowinus,  268. 

  Pinter  (?),  295. 

  Piquet  (?),  295. 

  son  of  Raimbold,  92. 

  son  of  Robert,  92. 

  le  Robeur  (Forbeur  ?),  118. 

  nephew  of  Roger,  96. 

  de  Rupierre,  328. 

  abbot  of  Seez,  288,  289;  see  also 

Ralph,  archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury. 

  son  of  Serlo,  322. 

  Taisson,  24,  96,  287,  334. 

  of  TancarviUe,  chamberlain,  41,  50, 

SI,  275. 

  de  Thaon,  sons  of,  323. 

  de  Toeni,  292,  297. 

  de  Tomeio,  173. 

  son  of  UrseUn,  326. 

  de  Vahnont,  129. 

  de  VaraviUe,  321. 

  de  Varneville  (Wanneville) ,  chan- 
cellor of  Henry  II  and  bishop  of 
Lisieux,  180,  181,  224. 

  '  vastans  granum,'  291. 

  de  Vitot,  297. 

  de  WaUamint,  335. 

Ramsay,  Sir  James,  125,  128,  177,  309. 

Ramsey  abbey  (co.  Huntingdon),  161, 

310,  317,  320- 
Ranulf,  322. 

  de  Bourguenolles,  337. 

  cellarer,  321. 

  chancellor  of  Henry  I,  294,  295, 

310. 

  earl  of  Chester,  22,  236. 


Ranulf  de  Ducy,  294. 

  Flambard,  bishop  of  Durham,  66, 

76,  81,  87,  287. 

  de  Grandval,  180. 

  brother  of  Iger,  63. 

  moneyer,  280. 

  des  Pieux  (de  Podiis),  71. 

  Rufell,  323. 

  scribe,  in. 

  de  Tessel  and  sons,  96. 

  vicomte,  63. 

Ranville  (Calvados),  63,  298. 
Raoul,  see  Ralph. 
Reading  (co.  Berks),  315,  316. 
Recognition,  149,  188,  196-238. 
Regarders  of  forests,  102,  103,  117, 
118. 

Reginald  of  Arganchy,  95. 

  vicomte  of  Arques,  258,.  260,  261. 

  son  of  Asa,  95. 

  chaplain,  52. 

  earl  of  Cornwall,  132,  306,  307. 

  de  Cortenay,  329. 

  son  of  the  count,  307. 

  de  Gerpomolle,  167,  219. 

  Landun,  63. 

  d'Orval,  287,  315. 

  de  Saint-Philbert,  326. 

  de  Saint-Valery,  130, 133, 140, 145- 

148,  153,  162, 166, 167,  206,  211- 

215,  230,  326. 

  '  Vulpis,'  92. 

Regino  of  Priim,  227. 

Relief,  19,  21,  22. 

Remilly  (Manche),  298. 

Renouard,  Chateau  de  (Calvados),  313. 

Re  villa  (Manche),  94. 

Rheims  (Mame),  132;  council,  313. 

Riant,  P.,  270. 

Richard  d'AngerviUe,  102,  103. 

  d'Argences,  194,  328,  335,  336. 

  Avenel,  336. 

  I  (de  Beaufage),  bishop  of  Avran- 

ches,  120,  126,  127,  129. 

  Ill,  bishop  of  Avranches,  338. 

  vicomte  of  Avranches,  58. 

  de  Babainvilla,  323. 

  Basset,  303. 


INDEX 


367 


Richard  II  (fitz  Samson),  bishop  of  Ba- 

yeux,  15,  90,  96,  137,  201,  226, 

294,  296,  297,  299. 
  Ill  (of  Kent,  son  of  Robert,  earl  of 

Gloucester),  bishop  of  Bayeux, 

34,  120,  203,  225. 

 de  Beaufou,  7. 

  Beverel,  219. 

  de  Bohun,  chancellor  of  Geoffrey 

Plantagenet  and  Henry  II,  131, 
136-138,  162,  220;  see  Richard 
II,  bishop  of  Coutances. 

  de  Boiavilla,  20. 

  Bustel,  291. 

  chaplain,  294. 

  earl  of  Chester,  294. 

  of  Cornwall,  224. 

  de  Courcy,  63. 

 I,  bishop  of  Coutances,  94,  96,  loi, 

102,  298. 

  II,  bishop  of  Coutances,  326,  327; 

see  Richard  de  Bohun. 

 de  Cullei,  11. 

 Deri,  336. 

  de  Dives,  321. 

  I  (CoeurdeLion),  king  of  England, 

177,  179,  183.  189,  190,  193,  194, 

334,  336,  338. 

 d'fivreux,  109. 

  count  of  Evreux,  29. 

  Faiel,  219. 

  Giffard,  180,  184,  334. 

  de  la  Haie,  139,  145-148,  162,  207, 

209,  210. 

  Haitie,  328. 

  Harela,  289. 

  son  of  Henry,  335,  336. 

  de  Herbouville,  229. 

  son  of  Herluin,  63. 

  du  Hommet,  constable,  162,  166, 

324,  336. 

  son  of  Humphrey,  229. 

  de  Lucy,  127,  299,  310,  331. 

  de  Montigny,  335. 

  Musel,  328. 

 fitz  Neal,  176;  see  Dialogue  on  the 

Exchequer. 


Richard  I  (the  Fearless),  duke  of  Nor- 
mandy, 25,  42,  49,  55,  250-254. 
  II  (the  Good),  5,  7, 9,  25-27,  32, 35, 

40-45,  48-53,  55,  56,  59,  "6, 

177,  261,  286;  charters  of,  52,  59, 

60,  92,  250-258,  263,  264,  266, 

272,  274,  280. 

  Ill,  256,  265,  267,  268. 

  IV,  see  Richard  I  of  England. 

  Ospinel,  335. 

  proconsul,  22. 

  de  Revers,  87,  103. 

  son  of  Richer  of  Laigle,  291. 

  son  of  Robert  earl  of  Gloucester, 

107,  167,  323. 

  archdeacon  of  Rouen,  292,  293. 

  de  Saint- Vannes,  abbot  of  Verdun, 

266,  267. 

  abbot  of  Savigni,  323. 

  brother  of  Serlo,  88. 

  '  sigilli  custos,'  311. 

  Silvain,  180,  336. 

  Talbot,  326. 

  de  Vauville,  139,  220. 

  de  Vaux,  vidatne  of  Bayeux,  167. 

  vicomte,  263. 

  son  of  WilUam,  68. 

 of  Ilchester,  bishop  of  Winchester, 

174-176,  180,  192, 19s,  328,  334. 
Richer  de  Laigle,  172. 
Richer',  186. 

Richmond,  countess  of,  181. 
Rievaulx  abbey  (co.  York),  235. 
Riville  (Seine-Inf .) ,  260,  262. 
Robert,  son  of  Alward,  68. 

  son  of  Anquetil,  292. 

  des  Authieux,  archdeacon  of  Lisi- 

eux,  322. 
  Belfit,  328. 

  of  Belleme,  19,  24,  46,  87,  88,  105, 

293,  311- 

  fitz  Bernard,  96,  167,  323. 

  Bertram,  229. 

  Blund,  34. 

  de  Bonebos,  63. 

  Boquerel,  constable  of  Mortain, 

168. 

  Bordel,  139. 


368 


INDEX 


Robert  de  Bothes,  20. 

  de  Brucourt,  179. 

  butler,  275. 

  Carbonel,  96. 

  chamberlain,  50. 

  de  Chanteloup,  21. 

  chaplain,  51. 

 de  Chemelles,  323. 

  Chevalier,  219. 

  Clarel,  328. 

  de  Courcy,  seneschal,  88-90,  94, 

95,  99>  107,  120,  139,  145-149, 
162,  206,  207,  210,  220,  222,  307. 

  bishop  of  Coutances,  6,  262. 

  de  Curie,  335. 

 de  Denestanville,  289. 

  son  of  Dodo,  291. 

  Doisnel,  82,  287. 

  son  of  Dut,  291. 

  fitz  Emeis,  210. 

  count  of  Eu,  66,  87.  ! 

  d'fivreux,  88,  89,  108-110,  126.  I 

  archdeacon  of  fivreux,  109. 

  archdeacon  of  Exeter,  1 20.  ] 

  Filleul,  92. 

  abbot  of  Fontenay,  323,  336. 

  II,  king  of  France,  29,  44,  45,  251, 

253,  256,  257. 

  Frella,  95. 

  de  Freschenes,  326. 

  son  of  Fulcher,  299. 

  de  Genz,  63. 

  son  of  G€x€,  219. 

  earl  of  Gloucester,  17,  96,  loi,  102, 

106,  120,  121,  129,  132,  197,  201, 
202,  294,  299,  301,  303,  308. 

  de  Grainville,  95,  96. 

  Grentemesnil,  287. 

  de  Guemai,  299. 

  de  Guz,  63. 

  de  la  Haie,  seneschal  and  justiciar, 

88-90,  94-96,  99,  loi,  102,  108, 
121,  146,  294,  300,  302.  I 

  fitz  Haimeri,  166,  219,  324. 

  d'Harcourt,  335,  336. 

  Harenc,  326. 

  de  Havilla,  162,  262. 

 de  HotOt,  95. 


rt,  brother  of  Hugh,  91. 

Ivi  Maisnerii,  291. 

de  Juvigny,  324,  325. 

earl  of  Leicester,  in,  120, 121, 127, 

295,  297,  300- 
de  Leuga,  328. 
bishop  of  Lincoln,  79,  237. 
chaplain  of  Lisieux,  88. 
dean  of  Lisieux,  322. 
loricarius,  306,  307. 
Marin,  210. 
Mannion,  287,  333. 
de  Martinvast,  220. 
son  of  Matilda,  325. 
Mauduit,  chamberlain,  113. 
count  of  Meulan,  29,  68,  70,  76,  83, 

87,  90-92,  229,  279,  285,  292, 

293,  297,  3",  321. 
money-changer,  152. 
monk,  286. 
de  Montbrai,  63. 
abbot  of  Montebourg,  335. 
de  Montfort,  68,  76,  138,  173,  221, 

287. 

of  Mortain,  son  of  William  of  Bee, 

288,  290. 
count  of  Mortain,  57,  285. 
fitz  Neal,  220. 

de  Neufbourg,  seneschal  and  justi- 
ciar, 92,  lor,  107,  134,  138,  142, 
145-149,  162,  165-167,  206,  207, 
214-217,  220,  230,  297,  321,  323, 
324- 

de  Neuville,  149. 
Neveu,  327. 

I  (the  Magnificent),  duke  of  Nor- 
mandy, 10,  29,  32,  33,  38,  43,  50- 
55,  59,  71,  87, 103,  116,  250,  256; 
charters  of,  4,  7,  26,  29,  33,  41, 
42,  251,  258-263,  265,  266,  272- 
27s,  337;  sources  for  his  reign, 
265-276. 

n  (Curthose),  duke  of  Normandy, 
22,  37,  43,  46,  78-80,  85,  86,  92, 
267,  278;  charters  of,  66-78,  80, 
82,  250,  285-292;  date  of  ac- 
cession, 67;  Normandy  under, 
62-78. 


INDEX 


369 


Robert  d'ODly,  54,  303. 
  Pantolf,  63. 

  Peche,  bishop  of  Litchfield,  115, 

294. 

  de  Pessi,  325. 

  Pigache,  167. 

  pincerna,  186. 

  Poisson,  324. 

 porter,  95. 

 priest,  291. 

  Pychart,  328. 

  fitz  Ralph,  162,  299. 

  archbishop  of  Rouen,  27, 33, 63, 190, 

251-253,  256,  262,  267,  273-275. 

  chaplain  at  Rouen,  118. 

  dean  of  Rouen,  325. 

  fitz  Roy,  son  of  Henry  I,  339. 

 abbot  of  Saint-Andre-en-Gouffem, 

328. 

  abbot  of  Saint-fivroul,  218. 

  de  Sainte-Honorine,  323. 

  scribe,  53. 

  bishop  of  S6ez,  22;  cf.  96. 

 canon  of  S^ez,  307. 

  seneschal,  50. 

  '  de  sigillo,'  96,  106,  107,  119,  120, 

299,  303,  306,  307. 

 of  Stokes,  299. 

  de  Thaon,  323,  324. 

  son  of  Thurstin,  289. 

 of  Torigni,  abbot  of  Mont-Saiiit- 

Michel,  78,  79,  128,  132,  158, 

176,  203,241,270,278,339. 

  de  Totes,  296. 

  de  Turpo,  94. 

  d'Ussy,  90. 

  d'Uz,  63. 

  de  Vains,  179. 

 de  Valognes,  139,  220. 

  de  Vere,  constable,  93,  103,  107, 

121,  308. 

  vicomte,  305. 

  de  Warwick,  219. 

 de  Wesneval,  92. 

  bishop  of  Worcester,  336. 

Roca,  '  pons  de  ',  19. 
Roclenus,  bishop  of  Chalon-sur-Sa6ne, 
286. 


Rocquancourt  (Calvados),  210,  212. 
Rodulfus,  255,  261,  286;  see  Ralph. 
Rohricht,  R.,  141. 
Rossler,  O.,  125,  132. 
Roger,  earl,  332. 

  son  of  Ainus,  173. 

  '  gener  Alberti,'  and  his  family,  1 20, 

121,  298,  299. 
  son  of  Amisus,  canon  of  Lisieux, 

322. 

  d'Arri,  clerk,  167,  180,  335,  336. 

• — —  d'Avesnes,  63. 

  de  Beaumont,  22,  28,  57,  68,  70, 

321. 

  abbot  of  Bee,  166. 

  de  Bocquence,  12. 

  Brito,  307. 

  Brun,  III. 

  of '  Bumes,'  121. 

  cellarer,  328. 

  chamberlain,  95,  128. 

  de  Clairvaux,  153. 

  de  Clera,  19. 

  bishop  of  Coutances,  294. 

  dispenser,  63. 

  de  Dotvilla,  dean,  322. 

  d'fipinay,  321. 

  de  Fecamp,  chaplain,  107,  no,  in. 

 abbot  of  Fecamp,  90. 

  Filleul,  328. 

  brother  of  Gilbert,  abbot  of  Caen, 

68. 

  Goulafre,  9,  219. 

  de  Gratte  Panche,  91. 

  earl  of  Hereford,  4. 

  hostiarttcs,  51. 

  de  Hotot,  dean,  322. 

• — —  d'lvry,  butler,  50,  77. 

  larderer  of  Henry  I,  115. 

  de  Lassi,  77. 

  de  Lesprevier,  229. 

 Mahiel,  326. 

  de  Mandeville,  98,  100. 

  Marmion,  95,  96,  294. 

  MauCouronne,  dispenser,  77. 

  de  Monnay,  219. 

  de  Montgomery,  22,  54,  94,  273. 

 de  Montreuil,  321. 


370 


INDEX 


Roger  de  Montviron,  299. 

  de  Pavilly,  92. 

  Peilevilain,  97. 

  son  of  Peter  of  Fontenay,  95. 

  prior,  291. 

 de  Rufo  Campo,  104. 

  de  Saint-Laurent,  291. 

 abbot  of  Sauit-Ouen,  166. 

 de  Saint- Wandrille,  321. 

  abbot  of  Saint-Wandrille,  166. 

  bishop  of  Salisbury,  125,  136,  235, 

303- 

  de  Scilletot,  289. 

  '  de  scutella,'  63. 

  secretarius,  68. 

  II,  king  of  Sicily,  23,  in,  112,  144, 

233,  234- 

  Suhart,  103,  104. 

  Terricus,  188. 

  treasurer,  106,  120. 

 vicomte,  96. 

 vicomte  of  Saint-Sauveur,  91,  127. 

Roland,  archbishop  of  Dol,  292. 

 d'Oissel,  118. 

Rollo,  7. 

 duke  of  Normandy,  10. 

Rolls,  Norman,  158,  159,  193,  194,  242, 

243;  Exchequer,  passim. 
Rome,  and  the  Norman  church,  30,  36, 

125,  154;  see  Legates,  and  the  indi- 
vidual Popes. 

Rosay  (Seine-Inf.),  81,  82. 

Roscelin,  son  of  Clarembaud,  326. 

Rosel  (Calvados),  228. 

Rotrou,  bishop  of  Evreux,  archbishop  of 

Rouen,  and  justiciar  of  Henry  11,  166, 

167,  172,  215,  216,  218,  219,  230,  237, 

322,  325-327. 

  count  of  Perche,  121,  294. 

RotseUnus,  chamberlain,  50. 

Rouen  (Seine-Inf.),  16,  39,  SS,  69,  75,  80, 

81,  87,  90-92,  101-103,  107,  108,  125, 

126,  128-130,  133,  134,  136,  140-144, 
148,  150,  159,  162,  163,  165-168,  171, 
176,  184,  186,  205,  208,  216,  219,  237, 
253,  254,  256,  266,  280,  281,  293,  295- 
297,  300.  304-306,  309-320,  325,  326, 
334-336;  archbishop,  6-8,  32,  33,  57. 


87,  III,  173,  179,  181,  250-252,  263, 
342;  archdeacons,  68,  87;  chapter,  41, 
70,  82,  107,  109,  no,  134,  147-149. 
180,  221,  273,  305;  cordwainers  of, 
126,  134,  144,  318;  councils  at,  6,  28, 
33,  37,  65,  66,  170,  294,  316;  MSS.  at, 
21.  30.  37,  SS.  70,  81,  90, 109,  no,  118, 
133,  134,  144,  166,  168,  172,  179,  180, 
188,  190,  221,  228,  229,  243-246,  250, 
257,  272,  273,  281,  288,  289,  294,  318, 
335,  342  {see  also  Seine-Inferieure) ; 
mint,  280;  modiatio,  43,  45;  modius, 
115,120;  Palmers,  134;  park  of  duke, 
68,  105;  town  of,  48,  86,  134,  135, 144, 
148,  150-153,  187,  221;  treasurer  at, 
180.  Archbishops:  Geoffrey,  Hugh, 
John,  Maurilius,  Philip,  Robert,  Ro- 
trou, William.  Archdeacons:  Bene- 
dict, Fulbert,  Gerard,  John,  Richard, 
Urse. 

Rouen,  La  Trinite-du-Mont,  abbey,  9,  26, 
70,  87,  244,  248,  251,  273.  Ab- 
bot: Walter. 

  Mont-aux-Malades,   priory,  134, 

142,  151,  326. 

  Notre-Dame-du-Pre,    priory,  68, 

104,  105,  133,  138,  303. 

  Saint-Amand,  abbey,  7,  10,  20,  26, 

43,  45,  S3,  93.  ^34.  140,  151,  229, 
244,  251,  273,  295,  314.  Ab- 
besses: Emma,  Maeelina. 

  Saint-Cande-le-V^ieux,  chapelry, 

no. 

  Saint-Gervais,  church,  251,  263, 

326. 

  Saint-Jacques,  hospital,  325. 

  SaLnt-Ouen,  abbey,  7,  9,  19,  26,  27, 

50,52,58,  59,70,81,87,131,  134, 
229,  244,  250,  274,  335.  Abbots: 
Nicholas,  Roger. 

Roumare  (Seine-Inf.),  93,  105,  160. 
Earl  (of  Lincoln) :  WiUiam. 

Roumois,  181. 

Round,  J.  H.,  3,  8,  18,  19,  22,  40,  49,  51, 
57,  81,  82,  88,  95,  100,  106,  107,  III, 
113,  114,  116,  117,  120,  131-133.  160, 
177,  188,  200,  221,  242,  248,  263,  264, 
286,  294,  306,  309,  311,  314-317.  329- 


INDEX 


Rouvres  (Calvados),  63. 
Ruallon  de  Sai,  138,  323. 

Sackur,  E.,  10. 

St.  Albans  abbey  (co.  Herts),  314. 

Saint-Andre-en-Gouffem  (Calvados),  ab- 
bey, 130,  134,  142,  151,  229,  244,  306, 
319.    Abbot:  Robert. 

St.  Aubert,  340. 

Saint-Aubert-sur-Ome  (Ome),  280. 
Saint-Aubin  (Seine-Inf.),  258. 
Sainte-Barbe  (Calvados),  priory,  94, 108- 

110,183,316,322.    Prior:  William. 
Saint-Benoit-sur-Loire,  abbey,  29,  245, 

274. 

Saint-Clair-sur-Epte  (Seine-et-Oise),3i2. 
Saint-Cyr-de-Saleme  (Eure),  70. 
Saint-Denis  (Seine),  abbey,  9,  10,  25,  58, 
245- 

Saint-£tienne-l'Allier  (Eure),  68. 
Saint-fivroul  (Ome),  abbey,  9-14,  24,  55, 

70,  71,  81, 134, 141, 171-173.  i75>  218, 

219,   244,  311,  316,  336.  Abbots: 

Robert,  Theodoric. 
Saint-Fulgent-des-Ormes  (Orne),  302. 
Saint-Hippolyte,  286. 
Saint-James  (Manche),  43,  274. 
Saint-Jean-de-la-Foret  (Orne),  301. 
St.  Lambert,  fair  of,  337. 
Saint-Laurent-sur-Mer  (Calvados),  271. 
Saint-Leonard  (Manche),  179. 
Saint-L6  (Manche),  133,  143,  220;  see 

Manche,  archives  of. 
Saint-Marcouf  (Manche),  100,  loi. 
Saint-Martin-de-Bon- Fosse     (Manche) , 

326,  327. 

Saint-Mesmin  de  Micy  (Loiret),  abbey, 
29,  59- 

St.  Michael's  Mount  (co.  Cornwall), 

priory,  273. 
St.  Nicaise,  Translatio,  266. 
Saint-Opportune  (Manche),  138. 
St.  Ouen,  92. 

Saint-Ouen-de-Flancourt  (Eure),  296. 
Saint-Ouen-du-Bois-Toustain  (Eure), 296. 
Saint-Pair  (Manche),  21,  59. 
Saint-Philbert-sur-Risle  (Eure),  8, 18, 19, 
68,  296. 


Saint-Pierre-de-Saleme  (Eure),  29,  30. 
Saint-Pierre-de-SemiUy  (Manche),  246, 
250,  297. 

Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive  (Calvados) ,  287, 
316;  abbey,  29,  93,  164,  245,  280,  310. 
Abbot:  Fulk. 

Saint-Quentin  (Aisne),  60. 

Sain t-Quentin-le-Pe tit  (Ome),  301. 

Saint-Riquier  (Somme),  abbey,  60. 

Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte  (Manche),  ab- 
bey, 103,  244;  vicomles,  35.  See  Neal, 
Roger. 

Saint-Sever  (Manche),  abbey,  245,  342. 
Saint-Sever  (Seine-Inf.),  68,  81,  82,  293. 
Saint-Vaast  d'fiquiqueville  (Seine-Inf.), 

SOS- 
Sain  t-Valery-en-Caux  (Seine-Inf.),  252. 
Sainte-Vaubourg  (Seine-Inf.),  118,  310, 

314,  315- 

Saint-Victor-en-Caux  (Seine-Inf.),  ab- 
bey, 245. 

Saint- Victor-l'Abbaye  (Seine-Inf.),  291. 

St.  Vulganius,  Translatio,  266,  267. 

Saint- Wandrille  (Seine-Inf.),  abbey,  7,  9, 
33,  42,  60,  131,  134,  151,  166,  167, 184, 
244,  250,  266,  267,  272,  274,  314,  318, 
335.  Abbots:  Ansfred,  Gerald,  Gra- 
dulf,  Roger,  Walter. 

St.  Wulfram,  Miracula,  266. 

Saint-Ymer-en-Auge  (Calvados),  priory, 
7,  133,  221. 

Saladin  tithe,  159,  192. 

Salisbury  (co.  Wilts), 318.  Bishop:  Roger. 

Sallen  (Calvados),  63. 

Sambon,  A.,  281. 

Samson  de  Montfarville,  loi. 

  chaplain,  later  bishop  of  Worcester, 

52. 

San  Bartolomeo  di  Carpineto  (province 

of  Teramo),  abbey,  234. 
Santigny  (?),  Santiniacus  villa,  258,  260, 

261. 
Saracens,  233. 
Sarthe,  the,  299,  301. 
Sassetot  (Seine-Inf.),  255. 
Saumur  (Maine-et-Loire),  131,  134,  138. 

  Saint-Florent,  abbey,  70,  77,  80,  83, 

154.  245. 


372 


INDEX 


Sauvage,  R.  N.,  7,  36,  77,  109,  161,  242, 
248,  249,  257. 

Savigny  (Manche),  abbey,  127,  130,  134, 
135,  142,  147.  148,  165,  187,  221,  222, 
244,  246,  247,  294,  296,  311-313,  315, 
323.  324,  337>  338,  342,  343-  Abbots: 
Geoffrey,  Richard,  Vitalis. 

Scabini,  24. 

Scarborough  (co.  York),  330-332. 
Schmidt,  R.,  227,  232. 
Schubert,  P.,  50. 

Seal,  ducal,  53,  72,  73,  104,  124, 143,  256, 

257,  287,  288,  309. 
Secqueville-en-Bessin  (Calvados),  96. 
See  (Manche),  Val  de,  339. 
Seeliger,  G.,  26. 

Seez  (Ome),  124,  307,  314,  316,  319,  320, 
33Si  336;  archdeacon  of,  88;  archives 
of,  244;  bishop  of,  6,  8,  13,  35,  76,  77, 
130,  173,  299-303,  342;  chapter  of, 
42,  43,  60,  ICS,  106,  299-303,  307,  317, 
318,  320.  Bishops:  Froger,  Gerard, 
John,  Lbiard,  Radbod,  Robert. 

  Saint-Martin,  abbey,  19,  70,  71, 

13s,  141,  187,  228,  244,  305,  335, 
336.   Abbot:  Ralph. 

Seher  de  Quincy,  constable  of  Nonan- 
court,  327,  334,  335. 

Seine-Inferieure,  archives  of  the,  7,  17, 
20,  27,  45,  50,  51,  58,  59,  68,  70,  81, 91- 
93,  94,  105,  109,  118,  126,  130,  133, 
134,  138,  145,  152,  160,  166,  167,  173, 
221,  226,  228,  229,  244-246,  250,  257, 

258,  260,  272-274,  290-292,  295,  304, 
305,  312,  327,  335. 

Seneschal,  50,  51,  58,  77,  89,  94,  99,  112- 
114,  120,  121,  146-148,  155,  162,  165, 
183,  184,  232,  275. 

Senn,  F.,  36. 

Serjeanties,  115-119,  152,  153,  182,  194. 
Serlo,  canon  of  Bayeux,  66,  86. 

  Buffei,  328. 

  chaplain,  91. 

  the  Deaf,  88. 

  de  Hauteville,  266. 

  bishop  of  Seez,  68,  70,  292. 

Serrure,  R.,  280. 
Service,  forty  days',  20. 


Servients,  152,  206. 
Servitium  debitum,  9,  18. 
Sheriff,  46. 

Sicily,  Norman  institutions  in,  3,  23,  61, 
III,  112,  195,  232-234. 

Sigurd  Jerusalem-farer,  270. 

Sigy  (Seine-Inf.),  priory,  50. 

Silly  (Ome),  abbey,  132. 

Simon  Anghcus,  229. 

  dispenser,  112. 

  d'Escures,  167. 

  de  La  Croisille,  228. 

  money-changer,  182. 

  de  Moulins,  294. 

  de  Moult,  328. 

  seneschal,  68,  77. 

  I,  earl  of  Northampton,  310. 

  de  Tomebu,  334. 

Simony,  66. 

Soehnee,  F.,  44. 

Solomon  de  CharecelviUa,  291. 

Sorquainville  (Seine-Inf.),  262. 

Southampton  (co.  Hants),  121,  122. 

SquUlace  (province  of  Catanzaro),  233. 

Stapleton,  T.,  110,  115,  147,  151,  158, 
i77>  197,  209,  274,  337-339- 

Stein,  H.,  241,  245. 

Steenstrup,  J.,  279. 

Stengel,  E.,  26. 

Stenton,  F.  M.,  263,  265,  333. 

Stephen  fitz  Airard,  121. 

  count  of  Aumale,  67,  312. 

  de  Beauchamp,  162. 

  of  Blois,  count  of  Boulogne  and 

Mortain,  king  of  England,  and 
duke  of  Normandy,  91,  92,  no, 
114,  120,  124-127,  129,  130,  146, 
153. 154.  213.  243.  294.  297,  316, 
33I)  332;  charters  of,  94,  106- 
109,  135,  144,  316;  Normandy 
under,  124-129. 

  chaplain  at  Bayeux,  52;  at  Mont- 
Saint-Michel,  51. 

  vicomle  of  Mortain,  127. 

  son  of  Ralph,  92. 

  of  Rouen  (fitienne  de  Rouen),  148. 

  '  stirman,'  121. 

Stevenson,  W.  H.,  53. 


iNDEX 


373 


Steyning  (co.  Sussex),  83,  252,  264. 
Stixwould  priory  (co.  Lincoln) ,  236. 
Stow  abbey  (co.  Lincoln),  81. 
Stubbs,  W.,  46,  so,  S7,  S8,  100,  164,  188, 
190,  ig6,  211,  220,  268,  268,  329,  330. 
Subinfeudation,  6,  16. 
Suffolk,  III. 
Surcy  (Eure),  80,  82. 

Taillebois,  9. 
Tait,  J.,  185. 

Tallies,  103,  117,  17s,  177,  229. 

Tanche,  the,  299,  301. 

Tardif,  E.-J.,  4,  31,  37,  38,  54,  86,  158, 

159,  161,  170,  182,  189,  193,  276-278, 

281,  340. 
Tassilly  (Calvados),  63. 
Tavel,  275. 
Tavemier,  W.,  293. 
Tessy-sur-Vire  (Manche),  271. 
Thaon  (Calvados),  233. 
Thayer,  J.  B.,  196. 
Theloneariits,  47,  291. 
Theobald  of  Blois,  124,  312,  318. 

  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  330. 

  chaplain,  51. 

  son  of  Norman,  279. 

Theodoric,  abbot  of  Saint-fivxoul,  11. 

 kosliarius,  51. 

TheviUe  (Manche),  335. 
Thi6ville  (Calvados),  63. 
Thimme,  H.,  48. 

Thomas  Becket,  chancellor  of  Henry  II 
and  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  121, 
IS3,  170,  214. 

  Brown,  Master,  in,  112,  195. 

  chaplain,  later  archbishop  of  York, 

52- 

  d'fivreux.  Master,  109. 

  de  Loches,  chaplain  of  Geoffrey 

Plantagenet,  136-141. 

  de  Pont-l'fiveque,  102. 

  de  Saint- Jean,  294. 

  son  of  Stephen,  121. 

Thomey  abbey  (co.  Cambridge),  81. 
Thorold,  bishop  of  Bayeux,  66,  201,  287, 
293. 

  chamberlain,  50. 


Thorold,  constable,  50,  263,  275. 

  hostiarius,  51,  77. 

Thurstin,  chamberlain,  grandfather  (?) 
of  Wace,  269,  271,  275. 

  de  Ducy,  336. 

  son  of  Helolse,  291. 

  vicomte,  256,  263. 

  archbishop  of  York,  296,  303,  314, 

315- 

Tinchebrai  (Ome),  86,  309. 

Tiron  (Eure-et-Loir),  abbey,  106,  245, 

312,  314. 
Tison,  forest,  153. 
ToUs,  39-43,  285. 
Torquetil,  son  of  Adlec,  261. 
Touffreville  (Eure),  127,  306. 
Touffreville  (Calvados),  98. 
Touquettes,  Les  (Ome),  11. 
Tourlaville  (Manche),  149,  220. 
Tours  (Indre-et-Loire) ,  council  of,  330; 

MSS.  at,  46,  245.   Archbishops:  Hil- 

debert,  Hugh. 

  Saint-Julien,  7,  33,  80,  245. 

Tourville  (Seine-Inf.),  258,  260,  261. 

Toustain  de  Billy,  247. 

Toustin,  Tosteins,  see  Thurstin. 

ToutainviUe  (Eure),  273. 

Treasurers,  treasury,  Norman,  89,  107- 

iio,  113,  118,  176,  180,  181. 
TremauviUe  (Seine-Inf.),  255. 
Tres  Ancien  Coutumier,  4,  28,  38,  158- 

160,  173,  182-189,  193,  198,  217,  277, 

278,  280,  319. 
Trevieres  (Calvados),  128. 
Troarn   (Calvados),   abbey  of  Saint- 
Martin,  10,  19,  39,  81,  87,  90,  91,  94, 

97,  98,  167,  173,  242,  244,  304,  321. 

Abbot:  Andrew. 
Truce  of  God,  31,  35,  37,  38,  46,  65,  85, 

104,  120,  140,  154,  279,  319. 
Tunbridge  (co.  Kent),  49. 
Turfred,  sons  of,  262. 

  de  Cesny,  328. 

Turgis,  322. 

  bishop  of  Avranches,  74,  96,  293, 

294,  3"- 

  de  Tracy,  22. 

Turold,  see  Thorold. 


374 


INDEX 


Turstin,  see  Thurstin, 
Turulf,  322. 

Ulger,  bishop  of  Angers,  130. 

Ullac,  30,  279. 

Unbeina,  7. 

Urse  d'Abbetot,  298. 

  abbot  of  JumiSges,  91,  92. 

 archdeacon  of  Rouen,  291,  293. 

Urselin  de  Wanteria,  92. 

Utrum,  assize,  173,  189,  198,  219,  238. 

Vacandard,  E.,  33,  253. 
Vadum  Fulmerii,  see  Vieux-Fume. 
Vains  (Manche),  43,  44,  68,  98,  179,  285, 
342. 

Val  des  Dunes  (Calvados),  16. 

Valin,  L.,  4,  27,  36,  49,  55,  56, 83, 88,  89, 
97,  102,  157,  165,  174,  178,  184,  186, 
187,  190,  196,  201,  217,  223,  228,  230, 
251,  327- 

Valognes  (Manche),  100,  116,  149,  155, 

165,  220. 
Varengeville  (Seine-Inf.),  326. 
Varreville  (Manche),  100,  loi,  311. 
Vascoeuil  (Eure),  279. 
Vassalage,  6. 

Vatican,  MSS.  at,  35,  253,  278,  281,  339, 
340. 

Vaudreuil  (Eure),  119,  181,  253,  254, 

254,  295,  298,  299,  318. 
Vauquelin  de  CourseuUes,  210. 
Vavassor,  9,  11,  19,  103,  324. 
Velterer,  82,  116. 

Vendome  (Loir-et-Cher) ,  abbey  of  La 

Trinite,  70,  140,  231,  245. 
Vercio,  314. 

Verdun  (Meuse),  267.  Abbot:  Richard 

of  Saint- Vannes. 
Vemai  (Calvados),  181. 
Vemeuil  (Eure),  104,  119,  140,  144,  145, 

149,  151,  152- 
Vernier,  J.-J.,  246,  249,  257,  258. 
Vernon  (Eure),  6^,  66,  314,  318. 
Verson  (Calvados),  59,  216. 
Vesli  (Eure),  32. 
Vetus  Redum,  259. 


Vexin,  46,  80,  268,  272,  315.  Count: 
Dreux. 

V^zelay  (Yonne),  205. 

Viaria,  vicaria,  vicarius,  25,  46,  47. 

Vicomte,  vicomU,  36,  37,  41-47,  5°,  54, 
56,  57,  59,  60,  77,  105,  106,  108,  116, 
126,  150-152,  163,  175,  177,  181-186, 

191,  275,  338. 
Victor,  abbot  of  Bocherville,  219. 
Vierville  (Calvados),  209. 
Vieux-Fume  (Calvados),  27. 
Vieux-Rouen  (Seine-Inf.),  313. 
Vignats,  see  Saint-Andre-en-GoufFem. 
Villers,  ancient  suburb  of  Caen,  179. 
Villers-Bocage  (Calvados),  129. 
Villers-Canivet  (Calvados),  abbey,  308, 

320. 

Villers-Chambellan  (Seine-Inf.),  255. 
Vinogradoff,  Sir  Paul,  3,  23,  29,  40,  196, 
279. 

VioUet,  P.,  158,  188,  193,  277,  278. 
Vire  (Calvados),  119,  129,  304. 
Virville  (Seine-Inf.),  272. 
Vitalis  de  Saint-Germain,  323. 

  abbot  of  Savigny,  294. 

Vittefleur  (Seine-Inf.),  253. 
Vivian,  abbot  of  Aunay,  298. 
Vorges  (Aisne),  45. 
Vouilly  (Calvados),  207. 
Voyer,  46,  47. 

Wace,  16,  18,  23,  41,  42,  86,  117,  177, 

182,  241,  268-272,  275,  279. 
Waitz,  G.,  7,  48. 
Walchelin,  chamberlain,  89. 
Waldric,  chancellor  of  Henry  I,  87. 
Wallop  (co.  Hants),  122. 
Walter,  292. 

  de  Beauchamp,  122,  298. 

  Broc,  292. 

  de  Canteleu,  92. 

  son  of  Constantine,  307. 

  de  Coutances,  Master,  180. 

  de  Cully,  294. 

  Giffard,  120,  134,  167. 

  son  of  Girulf,  261. 

  of  Gloucester,  305,  317. 

  son  of  Goubert  d'Auffai,  70. 


INDEX 


37  S 


Walter  de  Hainou,  104. 

  abbot  of  La  Trinite-du-Mont,  70. 

  Map,  115,  IS7,  183. 

  money-changer,  152. 

  de  Quercu,  292. 

  de  Saint- Valery,  187. 

 abbot  of  Saint-Wandrille,  228. 

  de  Wesneval,  291. 

  d'Yainville,  92. 

Waltham  (co.  Essex),  302,  303,  311. 
Walton  (co.  Sussex),  303. 
War,  private,  restrictions  on,  38,  65, 
278. 

Warin  Cepel,  95. 

  de  Dives,  95,  96. 

  fitz  Gerald,  chamberlain,  162. 

  telonearitis ,  291. 

Warner,  Sir  George  F.,  72,  160,  309,  310. 
Warwick,  121. 
Wesman,  39. 

Westboume  (co.  Sussex),  312. 
Westminster,  279,  303,  312,  332. 
'  White  Ship,'  13,  112,  121,  223,  314. 
Wido,  see  Guy. 
Wigan,  marshal,  88,  89,  307. 
Wiger  de  Saint-Mere-£glise,  223. 
Wigo  de  Marra,  80. 
WUda,  G.,  28. 

Wilfrid,  bishop  of  Worcester,  305. 
WiUiam,  255. 

  d'Angerville,  324. 

  Anglicus,  228. 

  fitz  Ansger,  98. 

  fitz  Amulf,  303. 

  of  Arques,  76,  258,  275,  289. 

  d'Aubigny,  16,  17,  87,  89,  96,  loi, 

102,  294,  310,  313. 

  Avenel,  139,  187. 

  Baivel,  63. 

  de  Bee,  287,  288. 

  abbot  of  Bee,  293,  315. 

  Becheth,  21. 

  de  BeUeme,  268,  302. 

  Bersic,  210. 

  Bertran,  63,  68,  76. 

  Bigod,  13. 

  de  Botevilla,  147. 

 de  Breteuil,  68,  76,  292. 


William  de  Bricqueville,  220. 

  de  Briouze,  187. 

  de  Brix,  102,  103. 

  Brown,  clerk,  iii,  112. 

  Burgamissa,  322. 

  Cade,  181. 

  Calix,  180,  33S,  336. 

  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  303. 

  de  Capella,  92,  321. 

  Cave,  327. 

  chamberlain,  50,  63,  66,  287,  291; 

see  WilUam  of  TancarvUle. 

  chancellor  of  Henry  11,  162. 

  chaplain,  113. 

  Clarel,  92. 

  of  Conches,  131. 

  cook,  95. 

  abbot  of  Cormeilles,  68. 

  de  Courcelles,  91. 

  de  Courcy,  174. 

  Crassus,  167. 

  Crispin,  46,  68. 

  de  Daraio,  19. 

  de  Ducey,  338,  339. 

  (of  Saint-Calais),  bishop  of  Dur- 
ham, 68,  69,  76. 
  of  Ely,  III. 

  king  of  England,  see  William,  duke 

of  Normandy. 

  son  of  Enguerran  Oison,  307. 

  count  of  Evreux,  63,  68,  76,  94, 

291. 

  bishop  of  Exeter,  294. 

  I,  abbot  of  Fecamp,  254,  256,  258, 

266,  272. 

  II,  abbot  of  Fecamp,  288-290. 

  de  Ferrieres,  192,  287. 

  de  la  Ferte-Mace,  33,  71. 

  Fort,  167. 

  de  Fraxineto,  108. 

  son  of  Gerard,  289. 

  G6re,  11. 

  Gemon,  63,  167. 

  Giffard,    chancellor   of  William 

Rufus,  82,  83. 

  de  Glanville,  334. 

  of  Glastonbury,  88-90, 99,  loi,  121. 

  Goth,  299-301. 


376 


INDEX 


William  Grenet,  289. 

  son  of  Henry  I,  312-314. 

  du  Hommet,  161,  167,  180,  336. 

  of  Houghton,  chamberlain,  121. 

  de  Houguemare,  162. 

  de  Huechon,  186,  338. 

  son  of  Hugh,  219. 

  fitz  John,  120,  160,  161,  167,  168, 

199,  213,  214,  323,  324. 
 Judas,  63. 

  of  Jumi6ges,  chronicler,  4,  241,  252, 

265-270. 

  abbot  of  Jumieges,  92,  262. 

  fitz  Leiard,  328. 

  bishop  of  Le  Mans,  147,  148. 

  earl  of  Lincoln,  see  William  of 

Roumare. 

  Level,  140,  149. 

  Malet,  constable  of  Pontaudemer, 

237,  312.  334- 

  of  Mabnesbury,  114,  115,  128,  268, 

272. 

  de  Malpalu,  326. 

  Maltravers,  299. 

  de  la  Mare,  180,  184,  327,  334-336. 

  marshal,  162. 

  de  Martigny,  335,  336. 

  Mauduit,  chamberlain,  113,  289, 

302. 

  de  Moiun,  210. 

  monk,  220. 

  count  of  Mortain,  294. 

  abbot  of  Mortemer,  335. 

  de  Morville,  168. 

  de  Moult,  328. 

 of  Newburgh,  128. 

 Longsword,  duke  of  Normandy, 

280. 

  the  Conqueror,  duke  of  Normandy 

and  king  of  England,  156,  262, 
269,  27s,  28s,  287;  charters  of, 
6,  7,  12,  19,  27,  29,  40,  43-45. 
48-56,  68,  72,  80,  81,  94,  115, 
126,  144,  251,  252,  263,  264,  274, 
279,  280,  321;  his  Consuetudines 
et  iusticie,  277-284;  Normandy 
under,  3-61,  83,  84,  86,  103,  121, 
150,  175.  178,  193.  265,  276. 


William  Rufus,king  of  England  and  ruler 
of  Normandy,  40, 64, 75, 278, 288, 
289;  charters  of,  66,  69,  77-83, 
93,  134,  222;  Normandy  under, 
78-84. 

  fitz  Odo,  constable,  88, 89, 1 1 1, 1 20, 

299,  302. 

  son  of  Ogier,  canon  of  Rouen,  70, 

83. 

  d'Orva],  138. 

  fitz  Osbem,  seneschal,  50,  51,  54, 

58. 

  d'Ouville,   constable   of  Falaise, 

335,  336. 

  de  Pad,  66. 

  Painel,  9,  21,  22,  24. 

  Paine],  archdeacon  of  Avranches, 

336. 

  Patric,  96,  160,  165,  294. 

  Peverel,  95,  127,  306. 

  Peverel  de  Aira,  294. 

  Peverel  of  Dover,  299. 

  Pichard,  186. 

  du  Pin,  92. 

  de  Pirou,  seneschal,  113,  233. 

  of  Poitiers,  4,  32,  61,  241. 

  de  Pont-de-l'Arche,  113,  115,  119, 

299.  303- 

  count  of  Ponthieu,  91,  97,  98,  124, 

130,  142,  145,  328. 

 priest,  224. 

  Quarrel,  335. 

 Rabod,  95. 

 fitz  Ralph,  seneschal,  159, 179, 180, 

183,  184,  192,  328,  334-33(>- 

  son  of  Richard,  322. 

  son  of  Robert,  230,  295. 

  archbishop  of  Rouen,  32,  34,  68,  76, 

93,  287,  291-293. 

  of  Roumare,  earl  of  Lincoln,  91-93, 

107,  127,  128,  14s,  162,  236,  335. 

  de  Rupierre,  63. 

  de  Sai,  13,  138. 

  abbot  of  Saint-£tienne,  57,  179. 

  de  Saint-Germain,  102,  220. 

  de  Saint- Jean,  340. 

  de  Saucey,  335. 

  de  la  Seule,  326,  327. 


INDEX 


377 


William  I,  king  of  Sicily,  233. 

  II,  king  of  Sicily,  234. 

  fitz  Stephen,  331. 

  de  Tancarville,  chamberlain,  77, 

92,  94,  95,  "2,  183,  219,  294, 

295,  317;        oiso  William  the 

chamberlain. 

 Tanetin,  justice,  97,  100. 

  fitz  Thetion,  216,  217,  238. 

  de  ThiberviUe,  322. 

  son  of  Thierry,  289. 

  Tolemer,  335,  336. 

  de  Tornebu,  68,  80. 

  the  Treasurer,  founder  of  Sainte- 

Barbe,  109,  no,  322. 

  Trossebot,  162. 

 de  VaravUle,  167. 

  de  Vatteville,  68. 

  de  la  Ventona,  108. 

  de  Vernon, 138, 139, 145, 148,149,220. 

  de  Vieuxpont,  63. 

  de  Villers,  323. 

  earl  Warren,  92,  120,  121,  287,  300, 

319- 


William  Werelwast,  chaplain,  83. 

  son  of  WiUiam  fitz  Osbem,  72. 

  of  Ypres,  127. 

Winchester,  79,  87,  106,  111,  113,  279. 
Bishops:  Henry,  Richard. 

  Hyde  abbey,  316. 

Windsor  (co.  Berks),  81,  310. 
Winus  d'Allemagne,  monk,  294. 
Wissant  (Pas-de-Calais),  126. 
Wite,  280. 

Witnesses,  synodal,  35,  227. 
Worcestershire,  23,  298. 
Wreck,  rights  over,  39,  loi,  161. 
Writ,  54,  77,  82,  83,  104,  125,  13s,  136, 

140,  163,  164,  186,  189,  191,  234;  of 

right,  97,  186,  223,  333. 

York,    236,   310,   331.  Archbishops: 

Thomas,  Thurstin. 
Yorkshire,  235. 

Ypreville  (Seine-Inf.),  260,  262. 
Zechbauer,  F.,  227. 


PRINTED  AT  THX  HARVARD  VNTVERSITY  FR£SS,  CAIfBRIDGE,  HASS.,  U.  S.  A. 


Plate  2.  Charter  Quoniam  veridica  of  Richard  II  for  Fecamp  (p.  255,  no.  3). 


11  Ls  s 


.OTTCX  .rrmzTu  '  T  J.  A.xmuit  qt.AC  LtrufM  ^  flcjJ.J. "tli  Hiu.Jiuf.naromxS 


ocn  fucmiir 


UTjtcir) 


.ijtiAC  dtcirup-cflt*^  Ivcddidt  »^uo<]-  omon  ttm.  ijUA  I 


Oslclki|iLu  CoSw*  mi.cuSuo  xLJo  .aeupSoiian  ^>  '  j.^(L(inuciuS.|Taqtii)  /((j^  W  liali''in$lowPot)iui 
.Apmllj^ituSLattixn  |uya.Tiioimi|m| txcnmt pj^^T  irtrrAaimi|jSmSmllAe'l5i«comA.proSiliro;\j)iny 
miajcA'pifcmumajpui  SolKiolkrHOcUino.uiuuA'ui  L)c<mwli'5i<ju»fitu<tm(j«pj|«rin(mcjttl<)rtnirr^jic 

^j-cciJJtO  *^B^<lti'*iut'»iiii  ^<**»nlJ«fip»!*'^culurt'7   ! Vi^'^i,H^r|jiS'ci7-i.\  4|ii*>Juu(i^  <^i/£^ijf'^l^t'Ji  J<rifnjf'>*^^7iS  (nuil^ 


\  S'j'-i.  Solium  Ci^s 


I'l.ATF.  4.  Charter  or  Robert  I  for  Fecamp  (p.  260,  no.  ioa). 


< 

o 

ai 

o 


w 
pa 
o 


< 
X 
CJ 


P  M 
O  M 

o  pq 


P4  5 

i-J  W 


H 


W 


>  o 


H 

o  « 

o  o 

-  < 


53 


Date  Due 

D    1  ^  'Q' 

JA  A 

ft 



Y 

gAW  a  'Ci 









1  



f 

